Psychology of Food Insecurity and its Discontents

The global food crisis of 2008 gave food importers a significant scare, and very few felt the shock more keenly than the water-scarce, oil-rich countries of the Gulf Co-operation Council. As these states rely on many of countries for their food sources, a year like 2008 in which food prices spiked can be a cause for terror. Because of the scarcity of arable land and high water stress levels, their high dependence on imports (60-90%) makes them price takers in the market.

As a response to their vulnerability to food prices, Gulf countries took action in creating bodies to improve food security, and measures were implemented such as increased domestic production and storage as well as the controversial land leases abroad. But are land leases really the right option?

Another topic to keep in mind is the psychological implications food security can bring about, and the implications of such thought? In 2008 and 2011, some researchers found correlations between the food price spikes and the conflicts around the Middle East and North Africa. When food prices hit a certain level (and other grievance factors are comingled into the equation), people tend to turn to violence because their desperation hits a level at which they have nothing else to lose.

Clearly, easily accessible (or affordable) food is a worry for many people. It’s life or death. Food is a basic need for human beings, and linked to food is the need for land. Land provides the foundation for many things in life: as a place to build shelter, grow and harvest food, plus many other provisions and natural resources that propel being. Thus, seeing countries from the Gulf invest in arable land isn’t too confusing or hard to understand because land sustains life. It seems to be pretty logical (even though there are many proponents of this strategy because of the negative implications that can be linked to it). But what will this really do in securing food for them in case of a crisis? How effective will it be to own land in somebody else’s backyard?

In many cases of foreign land investment, the countries that are invested in are food-insecure themselves. It is not clear that the investor countries would be able to access the food that they theoretically own in a crisis, as it can be hard to believe a country starving for food would allow much of it to escape its borders, regardless of who owns it. A hungry individual (or group of people) probably isn’t going to let a necessity to life just walk away from their own backyard.

Another dimension worth noting is the power politics that could come into play when food insecurities arise, as this is another psychological implication to account for. When a basic human need becomes commoditized, the countries of the world will begin to flex their muscles and things will likely get really ugly. Just look at a case from the past: as access to affordable oil was potentially jeopardized by the politics between OPEC members (Kuwait and Iraq), the United States intervened in order to protect its interest (as well as the EU and Japan’s) in the commodity, and the result was the Persian Gulf War. This may not even be the best example, but I have a feeling it would pale in comparison to the political and social ramifications in the case of a food crisis – because we need food to live. Hunger leads to desperation, which can lead to violence, as mentioned before, as almost any means to survive seems justifiable while in such a state.

This creates an urgency to become more resilient and independent of international trade for food. The Gulf States seem to have this idea as well, because more investments in domestic production capabilities through technologies like hydroponics and desalinization can be seen in recent years.

Hopefully the scare of a food crisis will be subdued through intense preparation or adaptation. The most powerful weapon we know of is the human brain, as it tends to be the driver for much of the evil (as well as the good) seen in the world. Maintaining a healthy psychological state amongst the world’s inhabitants in regard to food safety is key to keeping peace and perpetuating human development.

 

References: Gulf States Strive for Sufficiency, Financial Times “The Future of the Food Industry,” Nov 2013

Photo Sources: Farmer Weeding Maiz Field in Bihar, India (Picture 1) Farmer in Bangladesh (Picture 2)


Comments Off on Psychology of Food Insecurity and its Discontents / 14 Feb 2014 por Jacob Jon Pallone
IMSD /

H2+O= Life

Today i come up with one of the most important natural resources if is not the most important, the WATER.

I want to introduce you into the problem that probably we will live really some, with some data, and finally show you an example of good management of water.

The Earth, Water, and Fres Water

 

The 70% percent of the earth surface is cover by water but if we convert the water in a ball and we compare it with the size of the Earth we can see in the image how is the comparison, it is surprising, Moreover of the total amount of water on the World only the 3% of it is fresh water, and even that only the 0,08% of all the water is suitable for consumption, Shocked??.

The world population has increased in the last 70 years from 2.5billions until more than 7billions, but the water consumption has increased even in a higher rate, multiplying the consumption in the 40th by 5 in hour days from 50km3 to 250km3 by year, and as a consequence 1billion people don’t have access to drinking water and a high rate of people need to walk more than 3 hours each day to obtain it.

This problem is getting worse with the climate change and the increase of the temperature, also problem like the desertification (that we are suffering in Spain) made that the water issue cannot be ignored.

So as we cannot produce the rain, even if you try the rain dance like the American Indians, we should try to improve our efficiency, and second try to continue improving the technology to reuse the water, until the point that we can use it again as drink water (as Windhoek is doing1), because right now it is possible to drink it again but people that have try say that it is not the same and also that doesn’t have the same chemical characteristics.

But talking about efficiency I wanted to show to you the example of the entertainment capital of the world or maybe more easy, Las Vegas, placed in the middle of the Arizona desert, with more than half a million of inhabitants plus 39 millions tourists per year.

As you can imagine it is required a high quantity of water, and find it in the desert is not an easy task, the main supply comes from the Lake Mead, but in the 90th the prediction was terrible for this lake so they began with policies and good management of water for maintaining a sure supply.

They used the private sector as change-makers and as an example for the people, the set good incentives for good management of water, they made a wakeup call for the population, and also set fees for using water and fines for the ones that not follow the new water policies. Now they reuse almost 98% of the water that they use in their resorts, and they can be seeing as good managers of water2.

As conclusion I want to alert that these kinds of problems are already happening around the world and they are going to be worse, so are we going to wait until is too late? I think we must be proactive in this issue an tackle the problem as soon as possible, because as I have read, the water the most important resource in the next century.

 

REFERENCES

1- http://wp10918324.server-he.de/wabag/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Water-management-in-Windhoek-2007.pdf

2-http://www.lasvegasgmp.com/html/about_index.html

 


Comments Off on H2+O= Life / 12 Feb 2014 por marioescamilla
IMSD /

Biodiversity and Poverty: A complicated relationship

They say that ”variety is the spice of life”. After learning that variety of biodiversity is not only an indicator of the health and functioning of our ecosystem, but it also the basis for human life as we know it, I think perhaps the idiom “variety is life” is more accurate (if not nearly as poetic).

The fact is that we rely on the environment for all economic activities, either through direct or indirect goods and services. From provision natural resources, food, and water, as well as countless services, from air and water filtration, to pest and disease population control; its easy to see that how our way of life is intricately linked to our surrounding ecosystems.

Unfortunately, our patterns of economic development have taken their toll. The movement to more developed industrial economies has led to an array of threats to our natural environment; deforestation, soil degradation, habitat fragmentation, pollution, to name a few. According to a study by the Global Planet Index there has been an estimated net global loss of 28% of biodiversity (as compared to 1970) – with a 61% loss of that loss recorded in the ‘Global South’.

For 70% of the world’s poor living in rural communities, who are directly reliant on their surrounding natural resources for food and employment, their vulnerability to amounting ecological changes is all the more intense (See Linking Poverty and the Environment by Jacob Jon).

 

Mercifully, there is a silver lining; with higher levels of biodiversity, our ecosystems become even more resilient against impacts, human or otherwise; and the ‘Global South’ remains home to some of the most biodiverse regions in the world. Due to the variety of terrain, temperatures, climate, and altitudes animals and plants that live in the tropics are highly adaptable, new species are born at a rate we cannot know through. In fact, for all our studies of bio diversity, we have identified just 1.5 million of an estimated 3 to 5 million species currently exist, and while we worry that many will be lost to extinction before we can identify them, we should also think of those we will gain through speciation(Costello, May, Stork, 2013).

That being said, Mother Nature can only do so much, and to move forward, we need to focus  on helping the environment recover its functions, which are vital to our very existence. One thing is clear, the continued overexploitation of our natural resources must stop, and we need to commit to sustainable models of growth and development in order to help the environment to recover its functions, all of which are vital to our very existence.

 

 

References:

http://www.cbd.int/gbo1/chap-01-02.shtml

https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/development/poverty-alleviation-booklet-en.pdf

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6118/413

http://www.unep-wcmc.org/iied-wcmc-biodiversity-poverty-partnership_81.html

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/living_planet_report_graphics/lpi_interactive/


Comments Off on Biodiversity and Poverty: A complicated relationship / 06 Feb 2014 por asyamarhubi
IMSD /

Clever Investment: Protected Areas.

Natura 2000 network of protected areas was created in 1992 after the legislation adopted  by the governments of the European Communities, designed to protect the most seriously threatened habitats and species around Europe. This legislation is called the Habitats Directive and complements the Birds Directive adopted in 1979.

Natura network adds more than 26,000 sites in the EU, nearly 2,000 of them in Spain, the figures become the largest coordinated network of protected areas in the world and the main instrument for the conservation of biodiversity that exists in the European Union. There are still some issues which should be solved, but in general the process to construct Natura 2000 has been very positive.

Studies of the European Commission show that proper management of this network requires about 5,800 million euros, but these spaces produce between 200,000 and 300,000 million (between 2 and 3 percent of EU GDP) economic benefits.

These studies show that the spaces of Natura network (covering 18% of the land area of the EU and 28% in Spain) have a vital role to protect many species and habitats, but also contribute to water purification, carbon storage, protection against floods or combat soil erosion and desertification.

In Spain, the analyzes carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment and Biodiversity Foundation said that about 1,000 million euros are needed to ensure proper management of the Natura areas -about 80 euros per hectare-, but also match noting that the benefits of this set of spaces far outweigh its cost, in France the net profit by hectare is around 142€, 7 times more than cost associated because of the area management, in Finland, they estimated that for each Euro of public investment in protected areas are obtained 20€ as return.

Then one more time, we can see that spending money in environmental issues is not waste money; it can be a really good investment, moreover not only thinking about the economic investment, we also should think about the current value of the area and its biodiversity, also think about the potential value of it, because we never know what is hidden to our eyes now that could be really useful in the future.

So, what is your opinion, should we consider the idea developed in this post as a new argument for investing in the environment and protect it?

 

References:

http://www.prioridadrednatura2000.es/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natura_2000

http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/espacios-protegidos/red-natura-2000/rn_presentacion.aspx

http://www.rednatura2000.info/

 


Comments Off on Clever Investment: Protected Areas. / 06 Feb 2014 por marioescamilla
IMSD /

What will you do with your old mobile phone?

Have you ever thought about what happens with things when we finish using them? And how much waste was created in order to produce them? For a long time I´ve been aware of the importance of recycling and have tried to dispose my waste in a responsible way. But there are certain products that usually don´t have a special bin in the cities´ recycling systems –generally divided in plastic, glass, paper and “others” that won´t be recycled- such as electronic products.

New models of computers, laptops, tablets, phones that can do almost everything –probably even your laundry-, MP3 & MP4 players, and other electronic gadgets, keep coming up with better functions. Everyone is in the race to have the newest. But what happens with the old ones? Do we keep consuming and throwing away as if it had no consequences?

 

Electronic products are produced mainly with plastics, metals, glass, ceramic and coltain. When these materials are disposed in a landfill or incinerated they create a negative impact in the environment. But this impact can be avoided, because lots of these materials can be recycled. Recycling these materials wouldn´t only help reduce waste, but also reduce unnecessary extraction of natural resources that harms the environment.

Consumers have an important role to play because they are the ones that have the product and can decide what to do with it: turn it into waste or turn it into something new. But even if the products are their property, companies should take responsibility too because they are offering in the market products made of  materials that can be harmfull if not treated in the right way. Producers should look for efficiency in their production process and offer their clients alternatives for a responsible disposal of the product they have purchased.  With an intelligent waste plan, possibly old products could be recycled into materials for new products.

Some companies in the electronic industry are already in this path and have launched different recycling programs. They have still many challenges, like improving communication to reach all of their clients, make the incentives more attractive, and include recycled materials in their new products, but at least it’s a starting point!

Some options if you are thinking to discard your old electronic devices:

Now that you know there are options, what will you do?

 

References:



Comments Off on What will you do with your old mobile phone? / 05 Feb 2014 por celinalesta
IMSD /

Plastic oceans

The oceans are full of different ecosystems which provide the human race with vast amounts of goods and services. Our dependency on the natural resources coming from oceans is unquestionable. Since the commercialization of plastic products in the 20th century there has been a huge transformation in the composition of these valuable waters, affecting its wildlife and therefore us, major consumers of fish and other biotic factors. From the approximately 100 million tons of plastic produced each year, 10% ends in the sea. Most of this trash is thrown from land, while only 20% comes from ships (Greenpeace.org). Once in the ocean, plastic travels around the world due to the currents, so a plastic bottle thrown in the coast of Japan might end somewhere in the west coast of Mexico.

(“Plastic Vortex” in the Pacific Ocean, where plastic concentrates due to currents, occupying an estimated area as the size of Texas)

The environmental implications this waste has on the quality of water and sea life is only starting to be acknowledged. The main problem with plastic waste is that it is not biodegradable, thus generating different kinds of problems:

Firstly and probably the most problematic of all is that animals tend to eat plastic waste as they get confused with other sources of food. It is estimated that over a million sea-birds and one hundred thousand marine mammals and sea turtles are killed by plastic injection or entanglement. Further to this, plastics act as “chemical sponges”, concentrating damaging pollutants like POP’s (Persistent Organic Pollutants) (Greenpeace.org). The effects of this are unpredictable, and considering the current levels of overfishing it is possible that fish with plastic or chemical pollutants might end in our dinner if certification schemes are not more severe with quality.


The second problem is that plastic is slowly broken down into smaller particles due to sunlight and wave action. Around 70% of discarded plastic sinks to the bottom. Dutch scientists have counted a total of 110 pieces of litter for every square kilometer of seabed. Microscopic particles of plastic are ingested by tiny animals, killing the sea life and contaminating the vulnerable ecosystems and the food chain (Gannon, 2012).

 


Despite the pessimistic news from the scientific community there are still possible solutions to the problem:

1) Plastic-Eating bacteria: Scientists have found bateria-like cells in the ocean that seem to digest plastic. It is still unknown if the digestion produces harmless by-products or if it introduces toxins into the food chain (Zaikab, 2011). Either way, it is a potential area for investigation in order to achieve a way to get rid of waste.

2) Waste prevention. The most usefull to way reduce risks associated with water contamination is to reduce the amount of waste thrown at it. Raising awareness of the issue is a must in order for countries, particularly developing ones (which do not have such an environmental consciousness as developed ones) to reduce waste. At present time there are several campaigns doing this and volunteers that are collecting trash from the ocean.

 

 

 

References

– Greenpeace website,

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/oceans/pollution/trash-vortex/

– UNEP Regional Seas Report and Studies No. 178, http://www.unep.org/pdf/EcosystemBiodiversity_DeepWaters_20060616.pdf

– Johnson, C. (2011), CNN, “Plastic-eating bacteria found in ‘ocean desert,’ scientist says” , http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/30/plastic-eating-bacteria-found-in-ocean-desert-scientist-says/

– Gannon, M. (2012) Live Science, “Plastic trash invades the artic seafloor”, http://www.livescience.com/24247-plastic-trash-arctic-seafloor.html

– Zaikab, G. D., (2011) Nature, “Marine microbes digest plastic”,

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110328/full/news.2011.191.html



Comments Off on Plastic oceans / 05 Feb 2014 por alvarohernandez
IMSD /

Historical and philosophical view on natural resource management

Depletion of natural resources is one of the major concerns of modern societies and it seems as if it is a new trendy concept, but the reality of the situation is that depletion of resources (both biotic and abiotic) has occurred along human history. The difference between present and past exploitations is that the current depletion is global, while centuries ago it was local. To put a simple example, back in the day human settlements could have overfished a lake, finishing with a fish species thus altering the entire ecosystem. Today the problem is global, and the consequences in biodiversity are unpredictable. One curious example of altering a natural area is the case of the Monegros Desert in Spain. In the XVI century, during Phillip II of Spain kingdom, the navy required tons of timber in order to build the famous Spanish Armada. There is a theory relating the massive deforestation of a forest with the creation of the Monegros desert. According to it, this well-known desert of Spain was once a very large forestland. This example proves the point that humans have a cornucopian approach towards the environment (the belief that resources are infinite)

(Classic representation of cornucopia or “horn of plenty”, a symbol related to abundance)

Another case of absolute natural resource depletion is the case for the Roman Empire and the deforestation of Italy. Timber was considered one of the most valuable commodities in the ancient world, used for building, heating, agriculture and warfare. A lot of academic authors relate the massive deforestation of the Empire as one of the causes of its downfall as it depleted the soil, increased marshlands and fostered the abandonment of industry (as there was no forestlands left).

So it becomes clear that since ancient times, human economic systems are based on the concept of infinite resources, with no consequences from the depletion of them. This cornucopian approach can also be associated with the communist and capitalist systems. The problem that arises in our era is that this process is accelerated in a global manner. Therefore the consequences are no longer local but global. It seems as if we are adopting the Precautionary Principle. We as a society are aware of the risks that our actions have on the environment, but the lack of scientific evidence to prove long term risks does not stop us from continuing with natural resource depletion. It is obvious that the velocity at which we extract resources is not in accordance with the earth’s carrying capacity. It is agreed by the scientific community that by 2030 we will need two earths to fulfill our needs.

It becomes clear that the UN goal to achieve a sustainable development where we satisfy our currents needs without compromising future generations to achieve their own is unlikely to occur if we continue with the current status quo. However, this kind of behavior is what characterizes human behavior; until we are at the brink of ruin we do not react. We have a Promethean (the ability to overcome all problems) approach towards all of our obstacles.

References

– –  Humans will need two earths, report says., (2006) http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15398149/ns/world_news-world_environment/

– –  The role of deforestation in the Fall of Rome., http://news.bbc.co.uk/dna/ptop/plain/A2184473

– – Blaso-Zumeta, J., 1999, http://idd004kb.eresmas.net/monegros/bib/blasco1999.htm

–


Comments Off on Historical and philosophical view on natural resource management / 05 Feb 2014 por alvarohernandez
IMSD /

Linking Poverty and the Environment

When referring to natural resource management, the area in which I find most interest is the linkage to socio-economic factors, specifically the role mismanagement plays in perpetuating poverty. Issues about the environment, economics, and politics are all interrelated through the way humans interact with their surroundings and each other. Almost half of the world – over three billion people – live on less that $2.50 per day. Even further, 1.4 billion people live on less than $1.25 per day, and three out of four of them live in rural areas. At the center of the rural poor’s livelihoods is agriculture, which plays a significant role in environmental matters and quality. Poor people, with restricted access to resources and lower integration into the cash economy, are less able to substitute human and physical capital and therefore have less purchasing power. Thus, dependency on ecosystem services is even stronger.

Biodiversity allows for a wide range of species to live and work together helping maintain the environment without costly human intervention. Strong biodiversity creates resiliency, and we benefit from resilient environments as their resources help sustain our well-being.

In a report written by Sara J Scherr concerning the relationship between poverty and natural resource degradation, she explains, “environmental concerns associated with agriculture relate mainly to the sustainability of the resource base for agricultural production (e.g. soil quality), protection of biodiversity and habitats, and environmental services of resources influenced by agricultural land use (e.g. carbon sequestration).” Degradation is a pivotal concern in these rural areas as it threatens productivity of the land, biodiversity, as well as water quality. These people also depend immensely on the services the ecosystem provides outside of food and water, such as regulation services (floods, drought, degradation, disease, etc.), and support services (soil formation and nutrient cycling).

Years ago, there was a model introduced that specifically linked poverty and the environment in a so-called ‘downward-spiral.’ Supposedly, as far is this model is concerned, poor people place an increased amount of pressure on the natural resource base due to the increased populations, limited access to land, and lack of necessary capital for investments in natural resource management. The increased pressure on natural resources then perpetuates into decreases in consumption and increased vulnerabilities to poor health and food security.

This may or may not always be the case, but the real worry is that mismanagement ultimately affects poor people most as they are the most vulnerable – this is clear. When someone’s livelihood depends on the arability of land and usefulness of other natural resources surrounding them, one would think years of cultivation and tending to the land would create a sense of understanding for how the ecosystems function and how to protect them.

Click here to view the embedded video.

 

In her report, Sara Scherr outlines some of the key factors linking poverty and environment, with those being: (1) biophysical conditions, (2) use of resource-conserving technology, (3) and institutions supports the interest of the poor. She claims that, “researchers have demonstrated that poor farmers adopt resource-conserving practices nearly always because these also contribute to increased productivity or output stability and are economically viable in the farmers’ context of risk and resource constraints.” Like what was mentioned earlier, when livelihoods are on the line, people tend to make practical decisions.

They key is in helping these communities to build up their resiliency, and thus better preparing them to recover from any sort of stress or shock to the system. It must be done in a sustainable manner though so that the resource base isn’t damaged all the while the people are able to maintain or enhance their capabilities. We must keep in mind that people are in the middle.

In the same report, three basic strategies for addressing poverty and environmental issues are outlined:

1. To increase poor people’s access to natural resources essential to their livelihoods.

2. To work with the poor to increase the productivity of their natural resources so they can take advantage of existing or emerging economic opportunities (by co- investing in on-farm natural resources of the poor, promoting agricultural technologies with environmental benefits and promoting low-risk perennial production in poor and marginal areas).

3. To involve the poor in promoting good environmental management under conditions when economic incentives for doing so are not in place (by compensating the poor for conserving or managing resources important to others and by employing the poor to improve public natural resources).

Generally, the first will be driven more by an anti-poverty and social justice agenda, the second by food supply and economic development objectives and the last by natural resource protection concerns, although all three approaches contribute to the ‘critical triangle’.

As it stands, there are increasing pressures to find solutions to the problems the world may endear in the coming decades. As populations continue to grow and more people move into consumer classes, pressures on natural resources will inevitably be present unless there is a radical change in consumption patterns. At the heart of those affected will be poor rural farmers dependent on agriculture. As people in the ‘sustainable development’ field, we must recognize that there is a striking interconnectedness between human beings and the environment. Therefore, more action must be taken to make sure environmental and anti-poverty objectives are in line with each other, which will enhance poor people’s access to natural resource assets, provide security to livelihoods, better natural resource management mechanisms, and protect the biodiversity of the earths varying habitats.

 

References:

Sara J. Scherr, “A downward spiral? Research evidence on the relationship between poverty and natural resource degradation”

Global Issues – Poverty and the Environment

Photo Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/shykhseraj/5648957534/


Comments Off on Linking Poverty and the Environment / 05 Feb 2014 por Jacob Jon Pallone
IMSD /

EXTINCT: FORMOSAN CLOUDED LEOPARD


(photo: Elministerio.org.mx)

“When the last tree is cut, when the last river has been poisoned, when the last fish has been caught, then we will find out that we cannot eat money”

– Anonymous proverb

After more than 13 years of search and trace of the formosan clouded leopard, Taiwan and U.S zoologists, declare it almost impossible to exist.

“There are too few opportunities clouded leopards still exist in Taiwan. Maybe there are some out there, but not enough to continue the species, “ said zoologist Chian Po-jen to the Central News Agency of Taiwan.

There is always a reason behind every story, I am going to explain to you in simple words the two principal reasons and also I will show you some example of the common use of the specie.

The Rukai, Taiwanese aborigines, considered the hunting of clouded leopards a taboo; therefore, one of the main reasons that caused  the extinction was the incredible amount of illegal hunting for its teeth and decorative pelt, and for bones for the traditional Asian medicinal trade. (Nowell 2007)

The other main reason is the habitat loss and defragmentation. Deforestation in the tropical regions of Southeast Asia is the most serious threat to the clouded leopard. The species natural habitat has been fragmented and decreasing at a rate of 10% per year since 1997. (source: FAO 2007)

Taiwanese Aborigine leopard fur-by Torii

As every depletion of a specie, their extinction represents a sad setback to the incredible biodiversity and vitality of Planet Earth. The variety, quantity, quality and distribution of biodiversity is being damage. When one member of the biodiversity is depleated, all the ecosystems become less resilient, in this particular case, the recovery of the lost is inexistent.

It is very important that we start to get more and more aware of the importance of the biodiversity and the posible impact in every ecosystem. Below you can see where the few remaining clouded leopards live:

Countries:

Native:

Bangladesh; Bhutan; Cambodia; China; India; Lao People’s Democratic Republic; Malaysia (Peninsular Malaysia); Myanmar; Nepal; Thailand; Viet Nam

Regionally extinct:

Taiwan, Province of China (source: iucnredlist.org)

I hope that in a few years from now this list does not change for bad, I expect not to see an increase in “regionally extinct” section.      It would be a real shame for the planet Earth.

Nowadays, we can only see this beautiful specie in videos and museums:

R.I.P the Formosan Clouded Leopard

Pinche aquí para ver el vídeo

 

Please think before you do something you might regret. Preserve biodiversity as it should be.

 

Sources:

http://www.livescience.com/29236-clouded-leopard-extinct-taiwan.html

http://cloudedleopard.org/documents/Formosan%20clouded%20leopard%20Po-Jen%20Chiang%202007.pdf

http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/clouded_leopard/

http://www.iucnredlist.org

http://peru.com/actualidad/internacionales/declaran-extinguido-al-leopardo-nublado-formosa-noticia-226332

http://www.panthera.org/node/3652

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/clouded-leopard-declared-extinct-taiwan-6C9727843

 


Comments Off on EXTINCT: FORMOSAN CLOUDED LEOPARD / 05 Feb 2014 por Gabriela Pella Fernández
IMSD /

Deforestation in Madagascar: a threat to its biodiversity

The role of governance and international trade in tackling illegal logging

Madagascar is the 4th largest island in the world and – given its isolation and separation from other land masses for about 60-80 million years – it has 3 biosphere reserves listed in the UNESCO and it also presents one of the highest numbers of endemic species, both fauna and flora: Madagascar’s various ecosystems are home to more than 250,000 species of plants and animals most of which do not exist anywhere else (according to this case study).

Therefore, no doubt that it has an extremely rich and unique biodiversity which though – unluckily – is also highly in danger.

The role of mankind is posing serious pressure on its ecosystem and a threat to its biodiversity. Take the Rainforests of Atsinanana, comprising 6 national parks with an endemic rate of species close to 80%: they have been inscribed in the World Heritage List since 2007 “for their importance to both ecological and biological processes as well as their biodiversity and the threatened species they support. Many species are rare and threatened especially primates and lemurs”. (Unesco World Heritage Centre)

Due to deforestation practices, these Rainforests since 2010 have been also inscribed in the (sad) World Heritage list of the threatened species.

The deforestation process in Madagascar has started long ago and even accelerated since the end of the 19th century with the French colonization and conversion to coffee fields. The country has lost about 80% of its original forests and the primary forest now covers only about 12% of the country.

Deforestation is a major threat to Madagascar’s biodiversity as 90% of Madagascar’s endemic species live or heavily rely on the forest (North Carolina State University, 2010).

Deforestation has an impact on both factors of its ecosystem: on the abiotic factor (deforestation accounts for 35% of soil degradation according to UNEP) and on the biotic one (affecting the abundance and also the variation – reducing the biodiversity). Biodiversity is important because it makes the ecosystem more resilient and thus more “elastic” and able to maintain or recover its ecological function.

The biodiversity also provides enormous other benefits to Madagascar because of its ecological services (more than “18 million people are dependent on it for their subsistence needs, with 80% being essentially entirely dependent on natural resources. At least 70% of the population is dependent on resources derived from agriculture and other vegetation.), as a source of medicinal plants (2,300 plants used for medicinal purposes in the country; the export of medicinal plants is based on 50 species, of which 33 are forest-based) and attracting eco-tourism flows (income generated by the tourism industry represents the 3rd source of foreign currency). (Convention on Biological Diversity – Madagascar country profile).

There are various causes of the exploitation of natural resources through the deforestation process, mainly linked “to the economical and subsistence-related benefits the people gain from the ecosystem” (based on this post, 2011): agriculture of subsistence, commercial agriculture, energy, logging.  Some are structural to the country: high population growth rate – implying increasing needs of lands for cultivation – coupled with being one of the poorest countries in the world (with a GDP per income of 447 USD in 2012 according to the World Bank, ranked 6th last) with 92% of Malagasy living on less than $2 per day cause “competition for agricultural land and put pressure on the island’s dwindling forests, home to much of Madagascar’s unique wildlife and key to its emerging tourist industry” (BBC Country profile)

Others reasons are the production of fuelwood and charcoal for cooking fires, slash-and-burn agriculture (called tavy acording to this post: it turns tropical rainforests into rice fields, technique not sustainable beyond a certain population density), over-grazing and ranching, with an increasing international pressure from the so called “land grab” deals (15 deals registered according to Landmatrix.org).

One more reason of the deforestation is illegal logging, deplorable as the largest part of the benefits usually do not go to local communities but to private interests of large corporations (“rainforest destruction goes hand in hand with social conflict around the world as large corporations and other powerful interests expropriate the ancestral lands of forest peoples” as stated by the Rainforest Action Network).

As mentioned above the Rainforests of Atsinanana are part of a World Heritage site therefore Madagascar – as a signatory of the World Heritage Convention – should be formally committed to their protection (UNESCO World Heritage Centre – News, 2009 ) and thus have clear and coordinated management plans in place to control “agricultural encroachment and resource exploitation from logging, hunting, and gem mining”. (UNESCO, Rainforests of Atsinana)

Yet the illegal logging of precious wood species (ebony and rosewood) has increased since 2009 due to the coup d’etat and the following political crisis in Madagascar which also resulted in a halt of the international aid by the EU and the World Bank and a suspension from the African Union. (BBC News, country profile)

A weak or corrupted government and a lack of funds could not guarantee the protection of the forests within the parks as it should have happened and made it difficult to Madagascar to implement its National Strategy for Sustainable Management of Biodiversity (NSSMB) and to respect other international conventions related to biodiversity they had ratified.

International regulations can help stopping illegal international trafficking. As reported by Unesco World Heritage Centre (in its 2013 SOC State of Conservation report on the Rainforests of the Atsinanana) the CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species has been changed during the 16th Conference of Parties (COP16) in order to “…ensure that illegal timber from Madagascar is both forbidden and cannot enter their domestic markets”.

Even if UNESCO has confirmed its decision to retain the Atsinanana Forests in the List of World Heritage in Danger (see SOC report 2013) let’s hope that these changes in the CITES and the new Government elected in 2014 in Madagascar (hopefully strong enough to provide protection of the parks, alternatives to local communities – such as eco tourism – and promote new agricultural techniques) will at least stop illegal logging, decrease the deforestation rate and ensure a better preservation of the rich and unique biodiversity of these rainforests in Madagascar.

 

 


Comments Off on Deforestation in Madagascar: a threat to its biodiversity / 04 Feb 2014 por guidopreti
IMSD /

« Anteriores
Siguientes »

Este sitio web utiliza cookies para que usted tenga la mejor experiencia de usuario. Si continúa navegando está dando su consentimiento para la aceptación de las mencionadas cookies y la aceptación de nuestra política de cookies, pinche el enlace para mayor información.plugin cookies

ACEPTAR
Aviso de cookies