World Biodiversity on the slide

A recent major report in Science magazine by 23 scientists shows that biodiversity has fallen to dangerously low levels across two-thirds of the Earth’s surface. By ‘dangerously’ they mean likely to undermine the natural services, such as food production and waste disposal, on which we depend. The loss of biodiversity is mainly due to changes in land use.  

They authors found that original species are more than 14% less abundant as before we started changing the land and are at least 10% less abundant – the accepted warning level – over 90% of the Earth’s surface.

The authors further show that this is true for that 58% of the planet on which 71% of people live; so this is not a small issue for our species. 

Should we panic?

Probably not. The loss of biodiversity does not imply the immediate collapse of world farming (though there are certainly risks) or the pollution of all ours rivers. 

But, it will make the ecosystems more vulnerable to shocks such as the droughts, floods, storms, etc. that climate change will make increasingly common and severe. Over and over we’ve seen how areas of original habitat are reduced to patches in which all the species seem present. But after shocks, or just lapse of time, key species disappear. Though we don’t know the tipping points we do knows that they are there.

The changes in land use have neither stopped nor slowed. Neither will they stop whilst our numbers and impacts grow. The extrapolation is obvious: Further loss of habitat and biodiversity.

So though we shouldn’t panic we should ACT. We need to adopt genuinely sustainable policies – as the Green Party has always said.

Reference:

·         Title: Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment

·         Author: Newbold, Tim, et al.

·         Ref:  Science  15 Jul 2016: Vol. 353, Issue 6296, pp. 288-291

·         DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf2201

The paper is behind a paywall but there’s a summary in ZME Science.

The RoadWatch Debate in Context

For months Enfield RoadWatch has been collecting signatures on a petition opposing Fairview's plans for houses and a school on Green Belt land. Yesterday it presented the petition, now with 4,500 signatures, to Enfield Council. A debate followed.

If we strip out the repetition and political point-scoring we find the following arguments:

• Green Belt: Everyone agreed that the Green Belt is vital for recreation, to clean the air, provide habitats (especially for rare species) and preserve Enfield's special green character.
• Brownfield sites:  The Tories said that there are 280 acres of brownfield land in Enfield that should be developed instead of encroaching on the Green Belt. Labour said there is not so much and some is needed for recreational use.
• Population:  Labour said that the population of Enfield is expected to rise by 100,000 in twenty years!  The Tories said 'don't be silly' - it will be much less. *
• The Tories said that the Green Belt is sacrosanct and no-one should ever be allowed to build on it. Labour said that building on some Green Belt land might be the least bad option.

 Several things were not said:

• Backlog:  Like most of the UK, the borough is already short of houses and flats. It needs a lot more just to meet the needs of the current population and our children and grandchildren.
• Housing policy:  The only way that the backlog can be dealt with is by public investment in homes that will not then be subject to 'right to buy'.
• Population:  The forecast growth is partly the result of national and regional policies and different policies would have different results. (Actually one Tory did say that leaving the EU would reduce the growth but even he didn't seem to be serious.) Different policies could produce a city that was less unequal, healthier and had lower population growth.

Enfield Green Party remains opposed to Fairview's plans both because of the loss of Green Belt and because they involve a church-sponsored so-called 'free school'. But this is just one proposal. One point at which numbers and quality of life conflict.

Continued economic and population growth are not consistent with the protection of the natural environment either locally or globally. And the destruction of the natural environment will ultimately be disastrous for the health and well-being, and ultimately the survival, of much of humanity. The loss of two fields in Enfield is a small matter compared to deforestation in Brazil or famine in the Horn of Africa. But the drivers - fetishisation of growth, rampant consumerism and corporate greed - are the same.

Only Greens see these connections. That's why we need a Green government.


************************************************
* Notes on population:

1. Official forecasts here and here are for much small growth numbers than Labour claims. Perhaps 40,000 extra by 2032. That's still quite a lot.
2. Given the confused and highly unsatisfactory state of policy on migration, affordable housing and housing benefit, the likely long-term increase in the number of people wanting to come to northern Europe and the near certainty of at least one change of government in the next twenty years no forecast is reliable.

Uganda's forests in terminal decline?

What's the state of African forests? 

A recent article in New Scientist gives a dismal answer for Uganda. 

First the numbers. Between 1990 and 2009 forest cover fell from 24% to 10% and is still falling. At that rate it's probably down to 6% already and will all be gone by 2025.

But that estimate may be too optimistic. Many forest reserves look OK from the outside but in the forest squatters have cleared land and built homes, schools and churches. Many are solid, brick-built structures. The squatters are not planning to move on.

There's a quality issue too. Loggers, legal and illegal, have concentrated on native African hardwoods but reforestation - where it's occurred at all - has usually been with faster-growing softwood species like eucalyptus and pine.

And all this affects the wildlife. Deforestation, loss of native species, hunting, human defence of crops and the breaking up of large areas into a patchwork of forests and fields all make the wildlife move away. Those animals that stay lack food and face conflicts with the squatters. Conflicts that the humans are bound to win.

There are clearly two causes. One is land hunger due to population growth and human conflicts in both Uganda and its neighbours. The other is inadequate policing due to the usual mixture of limited resources and local corruption. Climate change is probably involved as well.

According to Forestry Commissioner Margaret Adata Uganda aims to get the squatters out of the forest and return forest cover to 1990 levels. Wildlife, she thinks, will follow.

I wish her well but time is terribly short.