One of the more misleading phrases used by journalists, activists and politicians is "scientists argue" or "scientists say", sometimes juiced up a bit as "top scientists say". Closer examination shows that it's really journalists, activists and politicians say, though some of them may also be scientists. The Senate majority leader is a doctor, but when he speaks about policy he is a politician. If the usage was properly qualified as "some scientists say" it would be more accurate though less persuasive for authoritarians. I suspect that's why it is not often done.

The world needs a new global organisation dedicated to stemming the loss of plant and animal species.

That is the argument put forward by a group of eminent academics in this week's edition of the journal Nature.

They call for the establishment of an Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity (IPB) to parallel the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Eminent? That's not helpful. But it is appropriate when we get down to the true purpose.

Jeffrey McNeely, who was not a signatory on the letter in Nature, supports the idea.

He believes the key issue is to integrate science with policymaking, in a body that could co-ordinate and commission research with the full involvement of governments which would have to decide whether to implement its recommendations.

But, he said, it would need money and political commitment on a level which governments have not yet displayed on biodiversity if it is to succeed. "We, the IUCN, would love to be able to play this role, but nobody funds us to play this role," he said. . .

"It's not going to be cheap; it'll need significant investment - we're not sure exactly how much, but certainly more than anybody has given us."

Money and power. That's all they want and to be completely candid, any excuse will serve. They may get the money but the power will be an illusion.

The proposed new body, Imoseb or IPB, may arise from the ongoing process of UN reform that could also re-write Unep's mandate.

In the end, the success of any international attempt to stem biodiversity loss will have less to do with internal structures and acronyms than with the will of funding and regulating governments.

The parallel of climate change leads to thoughts of the Kyoto Protocol, which attempts, among other things, to sanction governments that miss targets on greenhouse gas emissions.

Should, or could, a biodiversity agreement ever emerge with similar teeth? If it did, would those teeth slowly be pulled, as have those of Kyoto, when uncomfortable political realities became clear?

It's not just political reality that has been clarified. Economic, social and physical reality all contradict Kyoto's silly illusion.

How do groups talk themselves into such blatantly absurd positions? It seems that they are hermits that never leave their echo chambers. If they did listen to other voices they might hear some discouraging words.

The recent worldwide growth of parks and protected areas is impressive. According to the Switzerland-based World Conservation Union, nearly 29,000 protected areas now shield some 2.1 billion acres of land from a series of residential and economic uses. These territories compose 6.4 percent of the earth’s land, or about half of the world’s croplands, and are roughly the size of the continental United States plus half of Alaska. Most of this protection is recent. From less than 1,000 protected areas in 1950, the count grew to 3,500 in 1985 before ballooning to 29,000 today. The most ardent conservationists seek to multiply today’s base several times. If such global “greenlining” continues without concern for the rights of resident populations, its gains could take an enormous human toll.

Africa offers a telling example of greenlining with manifest social costs. In 1985, Africa had 443 publicly protected areas encompassing 217 million acres of land. Facing international pressure, virtually all African countries have since increased their protected land base. Today, over 1,000 protected areas account for nearly 380 million acres of African land, with 7 countries claiming protected status for more than 10 percent of their land base. In 14 African countries, more land is greenlined than cultivated, and the poorer countries in Africa today have on average more land set aside for conservation than the continent’s more affluent nations.

How many people have these conservation efforts displaced? A precise count of conservation refugees in Africa and elsewhere remains elusive, in part due to diverse definitions of a “protected area,” enforcement problems, and recidivism among refugees. In Africa, well-known cases of mass eviction have occurred in Uganda, Botswana, Cameroon, Madagascar, South Africa, Togo, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, and Democratic Republic of the Congo, affecting nearly half a million people. For example, Tanzania’s Masailand is now dotted with national parks that have displaced more than 60,000 farmers and pastoralists from their ancestral lands. Indirect measurements—such as multiplying the area under protection by a low range of possible human densities—yield estimates of 900,000 to 14.4 million people. If accurate, these upper bounds mean that conservation refugees in Africa could roughly equal the global refugee population of 14.5 million people currently calculated by the U.N. High Commission for Refugees.

The idea of "a biodiversity agreement ... with ... teeth" seems grotesque when we consider what teeth are used for now. If we do any agreements let's hope they have hearts rather than teeth. A mind wouldn't hurt either.

» Your money or your life? from Biopolitical
Your money or your life? This is an expert panel!...[read more]
Tracked: July 21, 2006 12:59 PM