Category: Threats

Posted on

Sunken billions

A new World Bank publication puts dollar numbers on the world’s approach to fishing:

Economic losses in marine fisheries resulting from poor management, inefficiencies, and overfishing add up to US$50 billion per year.

The book argues that:

strengthened fishing rights can provide fishers and fishing communities with incentives to operate in an economically efficient and socially responsible manner.

I presume it would help conserve marine biodiversity as well.

Also just out is the State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2008, from FAO. Part 1 is a very informative and data rich overview. FAO estimates that 80% of fisheries are fully or over-exploited, and that 47% of fish consumed is from aquaculture (which must become more sustainable, says the WWF).

Part 2 has a chapter on Marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction as related to marine biodiversity and the sustainable use of living marine resources. It is about bio-prospecting in international waters, and benefit sharing. They are looking at the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture to help develop policy in this area.

Posted on

Pesticide brigades

It is well established that brown plant hopper outbreaks in rice are caused by the use of pesticides. So why do farmers and their advisers spray even more when there is an outbreak?

According to this post on the Ricehoppers blog, it might be because plant protection services (in Vietnam) operate like fire brigade services, equipped for rapid response and control. And because, for the people leading these services, it is better to do the wrong thing (spray) then to be perceived as not acting (and perhaps lose their job).

Perhaps, like modern fire brigades, plant protection services will be able to shift their emphasis to prevention. And, like modern fire-ecologists, learn to let the occasional outbreak run its course.

Posted on

Rare breeds at risk of disease

BBC News says that “regional breeds of sheep face a heightened risk of disease because of their tendency to remain together in one location”. It is summarising a report from The Sheep Trust, which was founded during the epidemic of Foot and Mouth disease in the United Kingdom in 2001. That’s important.

What the Trust’s report seems to be saying that when there is an outbreak of disease, the regional, heritage, breeds are vulnerable because they are concentrated in a single geographical location. But that does not put them at greater risk of disease. It puts them at greater risk of being culled as part of government’s policy-based response to the disease. If the policy is to slaughter all animals within, say, 5 km of an affected farm, regardless of whether they have the disease or not, then yes, geographical concentration is a threat to the breed. But it isn’t the disease as such that is the threat, it is the policy response. It is even possible that the policy would wipe out flocks that contain genetic resistance.

What’s the answer? Given that regional breeds are interesting precisely because they are adapted to a small region, simply spreading them about might not be much of a solution. Gene-banking? Well, that’s where we came in: The Sheep Trust is an outgrowth of the Heritage Genebank. So what exactly do they want?

“We are strongly recommending that new measures are put in place to protect these important genetic resources now that their vulnerability has been so clearly demonstrated,” says Professor Dianna Bowles OBE, founder and Chair of The Sheep Trust.

No further details are forthcoming. How very frustrating. Maybe all they want is government money for the sheep genebank.

Posted on

Nibbles: Databases, Hell squared, Genebanks, Goats, Olives, Safe movement, Pouteria, Roman wine