[email doc b] * [privacy-policies-disclaimer]  *  ]SEARCH doc b's science website]

(7) Biodiversity: conservation - issues and project strategies to increase biodiversity

The objectives

We need to maintain biodiversity at a high level to ensure stable ecosystems.

Various conservation projects are being pursued by organisations, often in partnership with scientists.

The idea is to minimise future damage and reverse some of the damage done to biodiversity, particularly that due to human activity.

Strategies may involve ...

research and scientific understanding of the issues,

long-term funding for research conservation projects,

international agreement to conserve areas of endangered plants and animals and their habitat,

national protection legislation and policing of protected areas and the plants and animals in their habitats.

It isn't going to be easy, but the aims and objectives for biodiversity are VERY worthwhile!

With increasing 'globalisation' countries are able to share resources, services and expertise. This aught to help conservation and does throughout the world. But it can actually decrease biodiversity too e.g. large multi-national companies can dominate the 'market place' with the most profitable seeds and crops. In doing so, the variety of seeds globally is reduced, along with biodiversity. You could argue the same for using just a few 'selected' breeds of cattle.

Examples of conservation projects - programmes and legal regulation of the environment

(i) Conservation to protect and regenerate rare natural habitats

e.g. ancient oak woodland, coral reefs, heathlands, mangrove swamps, rain forests. This allows a greater biodiversity and allows plants and animals to continue to live in their natural habitat.

Conservation areas must be protected from building, dumping waste, farming, fishing (seas) and quarrying - some of the main human activities that inevitably destroy habitats of valuable biodiversity.

Conservation areas might be small local projects or huge national parks both on land and sea to protect all types of ecosystems in woodland, heathlands, lakes, rivers and seas (important marine ecosystems).

The best way to conserve a species is to preserve its habitat, in doing so you increase the health of the ecosystems and raise the 'local' level of biodiversity.

In conservation areas species can be monitored and protected in safe areas away from the impact of human activity e.g. not allowing any development or hunting.

To help sustain and protect ecosystems, the creation of national parks and specific nature reserves on land (woodland, heathlands etc.), rivers, lakes and the sea (restrict fishing access and catches) all help in conservation.

You could be dealing with a local wood or a huge safari park, look after them, manage them and restrict or stop development in conservation areas.

Wetlands need their water levels controlled to conserve them and re-flooding peat bogs that had been drained - all helps to conserve natural habitats for native plants and animals.

Reforestation of native woodlands and forests i.e. replanting indigenous tree species back in an area where the population has declined. It is also better to plant a variety of native trees to give a greater biodiversity e.g. different food resources for birds or insects.

Woodlands, like forests, have a rich biodiversity, exemplified by the ancient oak trees of England - an amazing biodiversity of species rely on them for food and shelter.  Oaks have more associated species of wildlife than any other native trees in England. These organisms range from bacteria to fungi, lichens (fungi in symbiosis with algae), free algae, mosses, vascular plants, invertebrate animals, birds and mammals.  Ancient oaks are particularly important as habitats for many of these organisms. They provide mutualistic 'services' for a long time in the same place, and as they grow larger and age, they provide additional niches for yet other organisms to exploit!

The case of peat bogs is of increasing concern to environmentalists.

In marshy areas, it takes thousands of years to create peat bogs form and they store large amounts of carbon (another part of our planet's carbon sink). The low oxygen level and acidic marshy conditions prevent decomposer microorganisms from completely breaking down the plant material.

Peat is harvested as a fuel and a cheap compost for gardeners - it does improve soil quality making it more organic and increasing food production (at least on a small scale).

But peatlands have their own unique biodiversity, AND a second negative aspect of draining bog lands is the removal of peat from a carbon sink - carbon compounds get oxidised to carbon dioxide e.g. from burning or microorganism respiration.

Conservation of species and habitats is expensive, so the costs of such programme must be weighed against the potential benefit to biodiversity.

How ever worthy the aims of conservation, there are often conflicting issues to deal with, and not just humans versus environment e.g.

To protect and conserve one species in a habitat from another less valued species, killing the other competitive species might be necessary e.g. 'protected' red squirrels versus outcompeting 'vermin' grey squirrels which are not native to the UK.

Killing rats and other animals that raid sea bird nests on an island help conserve bird colonies - important breeding grounds.

Are these actions morally justified? and by what criteria?

 

(ii) Government regulation and strategies is important.

Voluntary agreements with e.g. landowners, is important for wildlife protection but legal regulation of the environment works better in the end.

You can control pollution from factories e.g. how toxic chemicals are dealt with, ensuring no pollutants get into water courses, limiting potentially harmful emissions into the atmosphere.

You can control the amount of carbon dioxide that is allowed to be released into the atmosphere by businesses - you can offer financial incentives to reduce CO₂ emissions and move to 'greener' sources of energy - all to help minimise the effects of global warming, and every little scheme helps biodiversity directly or indirectly!

Banning the hunting of endangered species helps biodiversity.

Co-operation between countries can help too e.g. a band of European countries can ban the trapping and killing of migrating birds from Africa to Europe - a work in progress!

Banning whale hunting is another issue that brings many peoples views in conflict with those of Japan, Norway and Iceland and other countries approach to the whaling industry, where despite protest commercial killing of whales continues.

The International Whaling Commission restricts the quantities killed to around 2000 whales per year.

In Africa, endangered animals such as rhinos and elephants are hunted for their prized ivory horns - many African governments have banned such hunting and the sale of ivory - trafficking ivory is being tackled on a world-wide basis by governments co-operating with each other.

Fishing ground used by several countries need to be co-managed to avoid overfishing - this can only be done by intergovernmental cooperation.

BUT, one of the problems is keeping track of fishing quotas to check against overfishing.

 

(iii) A lot of attention has turned to modern methods of agriculture.

We need more sustainable methods of agriculture but 'wildlife' must be taken into account too.

Monoculture, that is where fields are just used to grow a single crop.

This is an efficient way for farmers to use land for specific crops, but it does lead to a decrease in biodiversity, often because habitats are cleared away to make space for larger more efficient fields.

The excessive use of anti-pest chemicals (herbicides and insecticides) means lots of potentially harmful chemicals have got into the food chains.

Insect populations in many places around the world are in decline, particularly important pollinators like bees.

Overuse of artificial fertilisers, resulting in rich nutrients washed by rain into lakes and rivers and causing overgrowth of algae, deoxygenating the water and killing most of the aquatic life beneath the algae.

Carefully controlling the amounts of agrichemicals helps, BUT, their use will always cause some harm to the local ecosystems - they basically cause a decline in biodiversity - but we do want cheap food, but at what price?

Some quite simple strategies can be employed to improve the biodiversity of our landscape in farming areas e.g.

Reintroducing hedgerows that give shelter and food for birds and a habitat lots of other organisms too.

Leaving a 'wild' field margin around the perimeter of a field allowing wild plants (flowers and grasses) and insects to flourish.

These strategies work best for single crop fields.

If trees are removed for timber, replace them with other saplings to grow into mature trees - temporarily stores up carbon - replacement is a sustainable strategy and in the long-run does not increase carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - this part of the carbon cycle is kept in balance.

Many 'experts' say we should employ more horticulture and less animal rearing in our agricultural systems because they argue:

(i) The 'carbon footprint is less growing grain and vegetables.

(ii) You can produce more food for a similar cost by growing crops.

(iii) A vegetarian based diet is considered healthier by many experts.

BUT, at the moment, and rightly so, in the 'supermarket', its your choice of lifestyle!

 

(iv) We should all try to reduce our 'waste footprint'.

I've already discussed examples of "sources of waste and pollution and their management"

 

(v)  You can instigate breeding programmes for endangered species of animals.

Many people support the preservation of endangered species, even though they are not necessarily of any benefit to human beings.

Here the objective is to prevent the extinction of rare animals, which is most likely to happen because of human activity like large scale building development and deforestation.

Unless small populations of endangered species are not boosted in some, extinction is always a possibility.

To increase their numbers, endangered animals can be successfully bred in captivity (often a zoo) which keeps the species going, and hopefully be reintroduced into their natural 'wild' habitat from out of these captive breeding programmes.

Zoos are controversial, but they are safe areas and have proved successful with many endangered animals.

Many large 'game' animals have in some cases been hunted to extinction and others on an 'endangered species' list e.g. some species of lions (trophy kills) or rhinos (poached for valuable ivory of horns).

This may help boost the remaining numbers of an animal population or reintroduce it where it had become completely absent from its original habitat - which itself might need extra management.

Note on plant conservation - seed banks and botanical gardens:

Cloning plant species can be done quickly and economically using stem cells found in the meristems - this ensures a good stock and avoiding extinction!

See section on plants in Cloning - tissue culture of plants

For plants, one method is to build up stores of seeds - essentially a bank of plant genes.  A seedbank is a store of genetic material for the future - an important strategy for conservation.  If any plant becomes extinct in the wild, it can still be grown using the store seeds and the new plants introduced back into the wild.

Botanical gardens have proved successful at breeding rare tropical plants and harvesting the seeds from a huge range of species.

Conflict of interests

Always a problem - usually preserving wild natural habitats and biodiversity versus the pressure from commercial companies and agricultural food production for us in developed countries and feeding indigenous people or export crops for much needed revenue.

Its our ideal of biodiversity versus our quite natural demands for a high standard of living e.g. good food and consumer goods.

Examples of competing pressures and interests:

(i) Food security is top priority and issue for many people in poorer countries.

Some animals are rightly seen as pests and are killed by farmers - e.g. locusts who rapidly destroy fields of crops - how can we argue against killing locusts.

We use pest control to protect crops and livestock in order to produce more food.

But this harms food chains and food webs and therefore reduces biodiversity.

See also Food security - population growth and sustainability issues

 

(ii) Similarly to example (i), it isn't just food we want, all around the world people want a higher standard of living - good houses to live in, places to work in, transport systems to get to work or go on holiday, and of course extra land for more farming needed to feed our increasing populations.

All of these developments take up land that was once 'wild' and full of many species of plants and animals.

Any of these developments is worthy in its own right, but they do remove habitats and reduce biodiversity because of their high impact on the environment.

Not easy to strike a balance!

 

(iii) Like many worthwhile things in life, biodiversity costs money, and sometimes a lot, and competing against other financial interests.

Generally speaking conservation doesn't make a profit so protecting biodiversity in our environment faces strong competition from public services like roads, school and hospitals etc. all of which are important priorities.

We have to pay farmers subsidies to reintroduce things like hedgerows and field margins, fencing off cattle to stop them polluting streams and rivers.

We have to pay inspectors from local authorities or government environmental agencies to check such programmes are being carried out and monitor the results.

 

(iv) Many poorer developing countries have abundant natural resources

e.g. minerals, timber and oil/gas hydrocarbons, but often in areas rich in biodiversity.

Exploiting these resources brings in much needed revenue to the country's government and people.

You can't expect people not to want a higher standard of living and compromises have to be sought, hopefully as sustainable and as biodiverse as possible.

Is it morally justifiable to expect people in developing countries to be prevented/discouraged from exploiting their natural resources to improve their standard of living in favour our 'developed' view of what biodiversity should mean?

Its ok for people in well developed countries to expect poorer countries with vast areas of unspoilt land to protect the biodiversity, but they want what we have got.

e.g. restricting deforestation, restricts the land available for agriculture to feed indigenous peoples and raise their standard of living AND they must have alternative source of employment-income other than timber logging.

 

(v) Local communities may object to a conservation schemes

e.g. because they might potentially interfere with their traditional way of life.

Coastal fishing communities may object to limits on fish catches as this reduces their income.

Farmers may object to not being able to exploit ever square metre of farmland, and not leave field margins, conserve and manage woodland or replant hedges. All these things add to biodiversity, but they do come at a cost to the productivity of a farm, but its where government grants can help a great deal - money talks!

 

There few easy decisions and solutions, but they must be made for all our futures!