Preserve biodiversity through community initiatives

By Pandurang Hegde
22 May 2010

The year 2010 has been declared by the United Nations as 'The International Year of Biodiversity'. But the governments in most countries remain indifferent to the massive loss of species of trees, plants, insects, fish, birds and animals that balance the life-cycle on earth.

Today, on May 22, 2010 as we celebrate the International Biodiversity Day, we are reminded of the unprecedented loss of biodiversity, of plants, animals and other life forms that is threatening the life on earth. In order to address the issue, about 180 countries have joined hands to form Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992. In order to work towards an effective strategy for conservation of biodiversity 2010 has been designated as the International Year of Biodiversity (IYB).

The CBD is hailed as a landmark agreement in which the genetically rich but economically poor countries were given the sovereign rights over genetic resources. It was hailed as victory for southern countries to bring forth equity and justice. However, in reality the move is towards the privatization of the genetic resource, in which patenting of seeds and life forms is the rule that hijacked the CBD towards bio piracy and bio trade.

Erosion

In the history of human agriculture about 7000 different species of plant have been cultivated as food crops. However, spread of industrial agriculture in the last 100 years has led to dramatic reduction of genetic diversity in food crops and livestock breeds. Today, 90 per cent of human food comes from only fifteen plants and eight animal species. The homogenization of food industry has resulted in narrow genetic base. Confirming this, FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) has stated that since 1900 approximately 75 per cent of the world's genetic diversity of food crops has been eliminated.

The irony is the world leaders, policy makers and scientists are least interested in integrating the issues of biodiversity into broader policies of their government. Rather through most of their decisions, displaying monoculture of mind, they attempt to erase the existing diversity, from agriculture to marginal cultures that show signs of digressions.


The Global Biodiversity Outlook, a report published in 2010 by the CBD has categorically stated that "the target agreed by World Governments in 2002 to achieve a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation has not been met".

The future scenario projected in the report indicates more extinctions and loss of habitats in the coming decades with associated decline in ecosystem services that is essential for the survival of human beings and other forms of life on the earth. It predicts that these have direct negative impact on the poorest people living in fragile eco zones and eventually it will affect the society at large.

Failed strategies

About 170 countries, including India, have evolved the strategies and action plans to conserve biodiversity. However, there is little political will and policy support for implementing this plan. In India, the obsession with target of nine per cent GDP growth set by the Planning Commission is leading to destruction of the areas that are centers of global biodiversity hotspots. For example, the ecologically fragile regions of North East India and Western Ghats are the hotbeds for building numerous hydro power plants and mega thermal power plants that not only threaten but lead to extinction of diversity of plants and other life forms in these regions.

The National Biodiversity Strategy Action Plan (NBSAP) is a dead document for all practical purposes. This grim scenario should have raised alarm bells at the highest level of decision-making, but shockingly, the top leadership gives little consideration to the issue of conserving the diversity that is still left in the fields and forests.

Positive actions

In contrast to this apathy there are numerous positive examples of direct actions by the communities to conserve the biodiversity. In the Himalayas, the Beej Bachao Andolan, (Save Seeds Movement), has spearheaded a unique attempt to conserve the crop diversity of hill regions. In the Deccan plains, the women groups led by Deccan Development Society have successfully regenerated the biodiversity of dry land crops in marginal lands. Even they have set up alternate PDS (Public Distribution System) that incorporates millet and other nutritional crops instead of white rice and hybrid wheat that causes malnutrition. Save Our Rice Campaign is working towards conserving the diversity of paddy varieties in different regions of southern and eastern parts of India. The Appiko Movement is working with forest dwellers to conserve plant diversity of forest tress, which provide non-timber forest produce that enhances livelihood. Thus, the community attempts to conserve biodiversity in India is varied and vibrant.

Nevertheless, the policy makers have failed to learn from these successful initiatives and incorporate their time tested methods of conservation to halt the erosion of diversity. Rather than adhering to the diktat of International funding organizations that appropriate the genetic resources, it is essential that we develop the route to conserve diversity through local means, under community control with the vision of equity and sustainability in using the resources.

GM forests or fuel mines?

By Pandurang Hegde
20 Mar 2010

Enough harm has already been done to the environment under the garb of development. Now, novel ideas like GM forests are being proposed as a new alternative fuel for the automobile industry. It's time for the world to learn from its cyclical mistakes, and fast!

Man's attempts to play with nature have now gone too far
(pic courtesy: The Ecologist)
As if the nationwide debate on Genetically Modified brinjal was not enough, we now have international agencies like the FAO rooting for GM trees. Surprisingly, while they suggest this, they presume that a forest full of GM trees will not lead to any more angst among the people.

According to the FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) State of the World's Forests report (2009), a global pattern is emerging that reflects a correlation between economic development and the state of the forests. Forests around the world are under severe stress due to numerous demands caused by rapid economic development.

Those countries that have achieved high growth of economic development are able to stabilize or increase their forest area, while countries like India, that are undergoing rapid economic development, tend to struggle with immense pressure on their forests.

It would be too naïve to conclude that rich countries have stabilized the forest cover on their own. With their economic and financial muscle power, they have conserved their forests to provide ecosystem services while meeting their timber demand from the forest-rich regions of Asia or Latin America. Thus they have successfully and conveniently transferred the pressure to poorer countries, causing more harm to the indigenous population.

The demand for tropical hardwood from Europe and USA is the main cause of destruction of natural forests in tropical countries. It is this voracious appetite for tropical hardwood that is playing havoc in the agrarian economies of countries like Burma and Cambodia.

India, while following the same model of development, also has a large middle-class population that has put tremendous pressure on the existing forests. The expansion of mining in forest areas has threatened the existence of forest-dwelling tribal populations. Conflict over natural resources in forest-rich belts of states like Jharkhand, Orissa and Chhattisgarh has resulted in a long-drawn battle between locals and industries, creating fertile hotbed for Naxalite insurgency. Ironically, the very forests that served as their lifeline have become a curse for these locals.

At this juncture, international forestry experts at FAO are looking at forests as an alternative source of fuel for the automobile sector after having burnt fingers with the agro and bio-fuels as a panacea to replace fossil fuels.

Jan Heino of FAO Forestry Department predicts, "Developments in science and technology will have an enormous impact on the future of forests and forestry. Trees may become the major source of fuel for cars, replacing oil." In many developed countries the research is geared towards developing genetically modified super trees that can overcome the slow gestation period with high capacity to produce cellulose fuels. This strategy has the added benefit of producing wood fuel on forest land without any negative impact on agricultural crops as with agro fuel, and unlike GM food crops, GM trees will face little opposition.

Nevertheless, there are apprehensions about these giant GM trees. The monoculture plantations might have a negative impact on forest biodiversity and on those indigenous communities that have forever lived in the forests. Sunderlal Bahuguna, pioneer of the Chipko Movement, says: "Commercialization of forests led to the destruction of biodiversity and introduction of exotic monoculture plantations. These are not forests but timber mines, as they cannot perform the multiple functions of a natural forest. Similarly, GM trees would accelerate the process of conversion of existing diverse forests into fuel-generating plantations. These should be called 'fuel mines'."

Clearly, the FAO approach is based on the narrow, parochial understanding with commercial benefits as the main objective. In contrast, the Chipko approach is based on the holistic understanding of forests as a source of soil, water and air.

It would be appropriate to look at the future of forests in terms of safe deposits for humanity that provide ecosystem services. The crisis of global warming has heightened the need to conserve and raise bio-diverse natural forests.

The ecosystem services of forests are no more evident than in case of the national capital Delhi, which depends on the Yamuna to meet its water requirement. The water flow in Yamuna is dependent on the forest catchments in Himalayas. Similarly, in the south the Cauvery meets the water requirement of cities like Bangalore, pumping it from a distance of 250 kilometres. The forest catchments for Cauvery lie in the Western Ghats. But in both cases neither Delhi nor Bangalore is interested in paying for the ecosystem services provided by the forests.

It is unfortunate that both the state governments and the people have ignored this basic principle of payment. Ignoring this factor may have long-term consequences for water security in the coming decade.