Biodiversity Options

[Simon Kirby]

Exhausted alluded to this in another thread and it's a subject that's important to me.

It's sometimes inconvenient to take care of wildlife habitat, particularly when that wildlife has made its home in and around our own homes, but almost any kind of construction and development, land management, and farming has the potential to impact negatively on biodiversity.

Biodiversity is obviously important if you value wildlife, but even if you have no interest whatsoever in the natural world biodiversity is important because, like it or not, we live in the natural world and our well-being is inextricably linked to the health of our ecosystem, though the essential problem here is that it's not immediately obvious why.

Take neonicotinoid pesticides: it's virtually impossible to farm intensively without some kind of pesticide, and neonicotinoids are relatively benign to non-pest species so it's incredibly frustrating to farmers not to be able to use neonicotinoids. The problem is that neonicotinoids are implicated in the decline of the honey bee so the European Commission has placed an interim ban on their use. That angers the powerful farming and agri-chemical industry, but it's a reasonable and proportionate measure because, without the honey bee, a significant amount of the food we eat would not grow. The causal link between honey bee decline and neonicotinoids is not unassailably strong and it's easy for the farming lobby to cast the environmental concern as the wishy-washy meddling of tree-hugging reactionaries.

The issue for me then is one of responsibility. Biodiversity and a healthy balanced ecosystem is important to all of us because we can't escape the fact that we live in and depend on the natural world, and we all need to take responsibility for maintaining that biodiversity, even when it's personally inconvenient.

[Andy Capp]

I just resent the attitudes like that displayed by Exhausted which I find ignorant and narrow-minded. If conservation of bats or birds was causing a short fall of housing I could understand, but as an argument I don't believe it to be true. I also believe that because of these people we need authorities to help protect us (and the environment) from ourselves.

[On the edge]

We certainly do ignore the natural world at our peril; time and again the clever ones amongst us come up with brilliant, foolproof ways ahead, only to trip up in the brown stuff when it's too late. As a small boy, I can well remember my grandmother proclaiming the virtues of DDT, a quick burst with the 'Flit' spray cured every ill.

[James_Trinder]

Take neonicotinoid pesticides: it's virtually impossible to farm intensively without some kind of pesticide, and neonicotinoids are relatively benign to non-pest species so it's incredibly frustrating to farmers not to be able to use neonicotinoids. The problem is that neonicotinoids are implicated in the decline of the honey bee so the European Commission has placed an interim ban on their use. That angers the powerful farming and agri-chemical industry, but it's a reasonable and proportionate measure because, without the honey bee, a significant amount of the food we eat would not grow. The causal link between honey bee decline and neonicotinoids is not unassailably strong and it's easy for the farming lobby to cast the environmental concern as the wishy-washy meddling of tree-hugging reactionaries.

You are correct that this is a big issue in the world of crop protection currently and also that the evidence against their use is definitely not proven beyond all reasonable doubt right now. For reasons of confidentiality I can't give out exact figures here but there were a significant amount of neonicotinoids used by farmers in the UK prior to the ban and they continue to be used widely in the rest of the world outside the EU.

[Simon Kirby]

You are correct that this is a big issue in the world of crop protection currently and also that the evidence against their use is definitely not proven beyond all reasonable doubt right now. For reasons of confidentiality I can't give out exact figures here but there were a significant amount of neonicotinoids used by farmers in the UK prior to the ban and they continue to be used widely in the rest of the world outside the EU.

The problems for me are that all sides of the debate have a poor track record - the agro-chemical industry has covered up environmental harm to protect its profits and is far from transparent, farmers have not always been the environmental stewards that they should have been, government has turned a blind eye to environmental concerns in support of the land-owning establishment, and environmentalists are at times barmpots.

In my view it is necessary to protect biodiversity because our ecosystem is relatively sensitive to change and a significant man-made disturbance can easily produce an unpleasant chaotic response. But maintaining that biodiversity is a challenge, and I wonder sometimes if it's misplaced. Take for example sky larks, lap wings, and house sparrows, all badly in decline. So is it right to change agricultural practices to accommodate these species, or should we not just recognise that they had a good run making the most of the niche that human agriculture created but that agriculture has changed and that those species will not survive.

[Exhausted]

. Take for example sky larks, lap wings, and house sparrows, all badly in decline. So is it right to change agricultural practices to accommodate these species, or should we not just recognise that they had a good run making the most of the niche that human agriculture created but that agriculture has changed and that those species will not survive.

I think that the migratory birds will survive but perhaps not in this country. If they can't find enough food or nesting space then they will find other places. Shame for us but a bonus for the French perhaps.

[Simon Kirby]

I think that the migratory birds will survive but perhaps not in this country. If they can't find enough food or nesting space then they will find other places. Shame for us but a bonus for the French perhaps.

I would hope that if we can make adaptations that aren't particularly onerous that we would do what we could to preserve the biodiversity, but I also think that some species are not well-adapted and perhaps there's no saving them. For example I'm not entirely sure that creating bat roosts in domestic premises is the right thing to do, but I also think that much can be done to preserve bat habitat in trees and out-buildings and limit the use of preservatives and pesticides so that bats still have a chance. Quite apart from liking bats as I do, they have a place in our ecosystem and it's never easy to know what would happen to the ecosystem if we lost them.

[Turin Machine]

The problems for me are that all sides of the debate have a poor track record - the agro-chemical industry has covered up environmental harm to protect its profits and is far from transparent, farmers have not always been the environmental stewards that they should have been, government has turned a blind eye to environmental concerns in support of the land-owning establishment, and environmentalists are at times barmpots.

In my view it is necessary to protect biodiversity because our ecosystem is relatively sensitive to change and a significant man-made disturbance can easily produce an unpleasant chaotic response. But maintaining that biodiversity is a challenge, and I wonder sometimes if it's misplaced. Take for example sky larks, lap wings, and house sparrows, all badly in decline. So is it right to change agricultural practices to accommodate these species, or should we not just recognise that they had a good run making the most of the niche that human agriculture created but that agriculture has changed and that those species will not survive.

It's the agricultural practices that are the reason for the decline, if we go on like this we are heading for all sorts of problems. Many of these species predate on insects harmful to crops, if we remove the predation we open the way for an explosion of insects. Then with the smaller birds safely 'out of the picture' what do the species that used to eat them do? We have a delicate ecosystem, if we go on as we are disaster beckons.

[Exhausted]

It's the agricultural practices that are the reason for the decline, if we go on like this we are heading for all sorts of problems. Many of these species predate on insects harmful to crops, if we remove the predation we open the way for an explosion of insects. Then with the smaller birds safely 'out of the picture' what do the species that used to eat them do? We have a delicate ecosystem, if we go on as we are disaster beckons.

Some years ago, the Chinese were tasked, in Peking, with running around for 24 hours to stop the sparrows landing until the birds dropped with exhaustion and could be gathered up. Got shot of the sparrow problem but for the next two years, Peking was plagued with millions of insects. An own goal no doubt.


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