Robert Watson, former chair of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (UN-IPBES) wrote a piece incredulous as to why we are ignoring biodiversity loss when…
It is central to development, through food, water and energy security. It has significant economic value, which should be recognised in national accounting systems. It is a security issue in so far as loss of natural resources, especially in developing countries, can lead to conflict. It is an ethical issue because loss of biodiversity hurts the poorest people, further exacerbating an already inequitable world. And it is also a moral issue, because we should not destroy the living planet.Robert Watson
In short, biodiversity has near uncountable economic, ethical, and moral value and its loss places everyone’s security at risk.
This is all true.
Only the following requirements described by the FAO, a sister agency to IPBES, are also true.
In order to maintain human food supply at or close to demand, global food production will have to increase by an average of 2% per annum across all commodities, but especially grains and meat, for the next 30 years.Food & Agriculture Organisation
In short, a second agricultural revolution.
Whilst Robert Watson’s statement that biodiversity “is central to development, through food, water and energy security” the scale of that development — 2% per annum for 30 years — will inevitably put biodiversity at risk.
Alright. This is a difficult conundrum, a wicked problem even.
The resource with great value must be mobilised to keep everyone secure and in doing so that resource is depleted.
It is time to accept that this is wicked and try to find solutions.
Here is a simple one.
By 2025, increase soil carbon levels by 1% in all soils.
The only places where you shouldn’t try to do this is where the soil is inherently or no longer capable of retaining another 1% of carbon.
Everywhere else do what you can to raise the level of soil carbon. This means more ground cover, deeper-rooted perennials, restoration and rehabilitation of natural vegetation in and on the margins of the production systems, shifts to less intensive cropping systems, minimum or zero tillage wherever possible, capture and return of organic wastes and by-products,
What would happen?
Well, around 15.5 gigatons of C would be sequestered into soil organic matter. That is equivalent to 173% of annual greenhouse gas emissions of 33.1 billion tCO2e in 2018, not a panacea for climate change because it would be a one off, but very useful.
Source: Ontl, T. A. & Schulte, L. A. (2012) Soil carbon storage. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):35
But that’s not the real benefit.
Runoff would decrease and water use efficiency of vegetation would improve due to better soil structure and water retention.
Nutrient use efficiency would increase because soil carbon, especially soil organic carbon, drives the soil biology that mediates most nutrient exchange between soil and plant roots.
So overall agricultural production would increase. Not by the 2% per annum for 30 years that we need to feed the world but part the way there, but close enough for the shortfall to be made covered by intensification and innovation.
Biodiversity would benefit too. Perhaps not enough to save the iconic species, that will need complementary conservation actions of the type proposed for nearly a century, but enough to maintain the core of biodiversity services that impact global security.
Why not people?
Please post answers to why not.
If you like what you read on Alloporus, please share with your social peeps