As a quick follow up to yesterday's post on the COP 10 biodiversity conference, there is some good news to report as the meeting in Nagoya, Japan of nearly 190 nations comes to a close.
The representatives have signed what is being called the Nagoya Protocol which is a strategic plan that addresses both specific biodiversity conservation goals (increasing to 17% protection of the land and inland waters and 10% for coastal and marine waters by 2020 - up from 13% and a paltry 1%, respectively) and a broader demand for each nation to look at how it can improve on diminishing the threat of overfishing, invasive species, and the general destruction of natural resources.
"This is a day to celebrate in terms of a new and innovative response to the alarming loss of biodiversity and ecosystems. And a day to celebrate in terms of opportunities for lives and livelihoods in terms of overcoming poverty and delivering sustainable development...This meeting has delivered a sea change in the global understanding of the mulit-trillion dollar importance of biodiversity of forests, wetlands and other ecosystems," declared Achim Steiner, head of the U.N. Environmental Programme.
While participating nations seem to be on board, the major challenge lurking in the wings is cost. Funding for the required implementation of the protocol was not determined during the two-week conference, preferring to leave to the devices of each nation. But Japan, recognized by some conservation factions as a conservation spoiler and major participant in overfishing, promised $2 billion towards biodiversity. Other cash-strapped nations may have to consider the alternative economic perils derived by not funding: collapsed fisheries, reduced tourism, greater food imports, and even population malnutrition.
While the Nagoya Protocol did not deliver everything that conservation groups had asked for (Conservation International, as an example, was pushing for higher percentage goals), it was, however, a game-changer compared to the results from previous international meetings.
A reason for cautious celebration with a strong dose of let's wait and see just what comes to pass.
Read the COP10 press release. Read TIME writer Bryan Walsh's article on the Nagoya Protocol.
The comprehensive study, combining the efforts of 174 authors, 115 academic and research institutions from 38 countries, worked with data covering 25,000 different species from the IUCN's Red List of Threatened Species. The results show that human expansion, logging, and over-hunting are moving 50 species of mammals, birds, and amphibians, on average, closer to extinction each year. According to renown Harvard University Professor Edward Wilson, "The 'backbone' of biodiversity is being eroded."
But a unique feature of the study - and one that should catch the attention of the COP 10 policy- and decision-makers - is that the study also analyzed and confirmed the positive effects of conservation, that the efforts of nation's to protect worldwide biodiversity can have a demonstrable effect. The study's results show that without the current level of conservation that has taken place, biodiversity would have declined by another 20 percent.
"History has shown us that conservation can achieve the impossible, as anyone who knows the story of the White Rhinoceros in southern Africa knows," Dr Simon Stuart, Chair of IUCN's Species Survival Commission and an author on the study was quoted in Science Daily."But this is the first time we can demonstrate the aggregated positive impact of these successes on the state of the environment."
This is a much better start to this conference than the COP 15 climate conference in 2009 or the CITES conference in March of this year, where political and economic lobbying ran roughshod over important conservation and environmental initiatives. For COP 10, this is a good step forward and the nations involved appear to be on board with the study's findings. Now the question is, what will be the final results of the conference in terms of policy and commitment? Lip service or definitive, lasting action? Read more about the COP10 study in Science Daily.
Conservation. The word has different meanings and consequences in different parts of the world. In many developed countries it serves as a means to protect natural resources for future generations to see and enjoy. Global implications might enter into the picture, promoting conservation so as not to disrupt large-scale ecosystems. Or perhaps it's a cause du jour; it's just good manners.
But in underdeveloped or developing countries, conservation can be an intimate matter of life and death, having a profound impact on poverty. But a good or a bad impact? Does conservation help to eliminate poverty or exacerbate it? Or are the two not linked at all in any way?
To the conservationist, it would seem an obvious benefit and many worldwide organizations - like the United Nation's Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) - have adopted that position. But studies to date have not yet provided a clear path to that conclusion. According to Nature.com's NatureNews, past small scale studies were inconclusive, "Many studies have simply shown that poverty frequently overlaps with areas that are a high priority for biodiversity conservation."
With the U.N. coming up short in its two goals of stemming the loss of biological diversity by 2010 and lifting at least half of the world's poorest out of poverty by 2015, considerable attention is being drawn to upcoming CBD meetings later this month. Convention members will be turning to research studies for answers and there have been a few large scale studies that provide an indication that a connection does exist between conservation and the reduction of poverty.
Conservation International conducted a massive global study of a group of ecosystems including water from rivers and streams. Using data and maps from sources ranging from the World Wildlife Fund to NASA, Conservation International combined that with population and human distribution data derived from LandScan data from the U.S. Department of Energy to determine whether any relationships exist between areas of poverty and possible biological diversity conservation efforts.
NatureNews reported, "The study, as yet unpublished, showed that water conservation projects could aid poverty alleviation. The 16 other ecosystem services they assessed, including crop pollination by insects and waste treatment, showed similar results. 'This suggests we should continue to push for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development where these synergies exist,' says [Conservation International researcher Will] Turner." All well and good, but another study from a London-based research group brought up an important issue when conservation measures are initiated in countries as an economic stimulus to eliminate poverty, IE: eco-tourism. The study by the International Institute for Environment and Development questioned whether the economic benefits were actually reaching those in greatest need. As an anecdote to this study, I was reading about efforts to improve the controlled hunting of lions in African reserves. At issue was that, while considerable fees were being charged to the trophy hunters, local villagers who staffed the park reserve were still drastically underpaid.
More large-scale studies are taking place, but a final, definitive conclusion will be a difficult goal to achieve as there are so many variables at work in any particular situation. Population sizes, what specific ecosystems or natural resources would be conserved, what species are at risk, what economic benefits can be derived - all play a role and all can be different from place to place, situation to situation.
In the next few weeks, the United Nations will be struggling with strategies that can hopefully both lift the poverty levels of needy nations through economic development while preserving natural resources and enhancing biodiversity. It is a difficult tightrope to walk. Wrestling with finding solutions that will prevent conservation from being at odds with the reduction of poverty, Bill Adams from the University of Cambridge observed, "Maybe we can't stop biodiversity loss and lift people out of poverty at the same time, but we have to try to make it work."
Read article in NatureNews. Visit the Convention on Biological Diversity website.
Yin-Yang news about biodiversity: the United Nation's Convention on Biological Diversity recently released its third Global Biodiveristy Outlook report and the results were not good. Eight years ago, targets were set to improve both plant and animal biodiversity and not only were those targets not met, but the report determined that the rate of extinction of plant and animal life is happening 1000 times faster than expected.
The report examines global biodiversity which includes ecosystems such as coral reefs, tropical rainforests, and other ecosystems in addition to specific threatened plant and animal life.
But on a more positive note and speaking of threatened animal life, a recent field study of tigers in the Kaziranga National park in northeast India revealed the largest concentration of these highly endangered cats. Using camera traps, the study, conducted in the first quarter of 2009, photographed tigers at a rate of 32 per 100 sq. km - that's compared to the rate of 3-12 tigers found throughout India's reserve parks and nearly twice that of the previous record of 19.6 tigers found in another reserve.
The success of the tiger population in this one reserve is being attributed to the reserve's grassland features and available food sources like deer and wild boar. Hopefully, the reserve's ability to resist poaching is also playing a role. Unfortunately, tigers are illegally hunted for their hides and, in particular, for their genitals - a homeopathic freeze-dried aphrodisiac that commands a high price in many Asian countries.
Read about the biodiversity report in the Guardian.co.uk. Read about the tiger study (with pictures) in the BBC Earth News.
As a quick follow up to yesterday's post on the COP 10 biodiversity conference, there is some good news to report as the meeting in Nagoya, Japan of nearly 190 nations comes to a close.
The representatives have signed what is being called the Nagoya Protocol which is a strategic plan that addresses both specific biodiversity conservation goals (increasing to 17% protection of the land and inland waters and 10% for coastal and marine waters by 2020 - up from 13% and a paltry 1%, respectively) and a broader demand for each nation to look at how it can improve on diminishing the threat of overfishing, invasive species, and the general destruction of natural resources.
