Biodiversity or Bust.

There are many reasons for adopting small-farm agriculture, without pesticides and without GE technology... and to pre-empt those well-worn soundbites of the pro GM lobby it's not about ...'nostalgia or a yearning for a bygone 'green and pleasant land',, it's not about a 'sentimentalised attachment to cuddly animals,and wildlife,' and it's not about an 'idealised or luddite view of pre-industrial agriculture,' or 'antipathy toward technological progress.' IT IS about NECESSITY. I am talking about stopping biodiversity loss.

2010 has been declared International Year of Biodiversity,and according to the experts there is only one generation left to turn it around.
Turn what around, and why? A recent survey compiled by the International Union for Conservation of Nature,shows that one fifth of all known mammals, one tenth of all known birds,and seven out of ten plants are now classed as threatened.Loss of our flora and fauna is estimated to be as high as 1,000 times the natural rate as a result of human activities.In 1992 192 countries signed up to protect biodiversity at The Rio Earth Summit. Their target aimed to substantially reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010.

It's totally legitimate to try and save other species because we appreciate the richness of nature for its own sake,nothing more,nothing less.... although some might say that's just a luxury of rich nations.Not any more..Dr Ahmed Djoghlaf, the general secretary of the treaty, has been unprevaricating in declaring the lack of success of all the participants in achieving their target..and adds that 'business as usual is no longer an option.'

Dr Robert Bloomfield is the coordinator for the UK International year of biodiversity, which features talks, exhibitions, public dialogues, art work and citizen science experiments encompassing both science and the arts.He explains the urgency of this project very clearly,.and failure to achieve the targets for 2020 forsees a bankrupt world in all senses..
...."The equivalent to the Stern report for biodiversity is called The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). It warns that our neglect of the natural services provided by biodiversity is an economic catastrophe of an order of magnitude greater than the global economic crisis. Year on year, the irreversible loss of natural diverse genetic resources impoverishes the world and undermines our ability to develop new crops and medicines, resist pests and diseases, and maintain the host of natural products on which humans rely.
Equally significant, are the vital natural services that the world's ecosystems provide. These include providing vital oxygen, decomposing waste, removing pollutants, providing the natural buffers that help manage drought and flood, protect soil from erosion, ensure soil fertility, and provide breeding nurseries to maintain fish ocean stocks. The list goes on, and among these immeasurable vital functions of nature is of course its ability to absorb carbon dioxide. The ability of forests, bogs and salt marches, tundra, coral and ocean plankton to sequester carbon should be our greatest ally in managing the increased emissions of fossil fuel activity – a key theme of the climate negotiations in Copenhagen last month.
Rather than seeing biodiversity and ecological mechanisms being eroded, we need to see a massive effort towards finding a more effective sustainable relationship between human society and nature. This is not a scientific or environmental issue, it is a social question and an ethical one about what our generation leaves for those in the future."(From "Biodiversity is not just about saving exotic species from extinction." Mon 11th Jan. 2010. guardian.co.uk)

Farming-Small Farms Produce More.

I provide some quotes below from a policy brief by Peter M Rosset, Ph.D. Executive Director Food First/The Institute for Food and Development. The policy brief was prepared for "Cultivating Our Futures" the FAO/Netherlands Conference on the Multifunctional Character of Agriculture and Land,12-17 September1999, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

.."In this policy brief I challenge the conventional wisdom that small farms are backward and unproductive. Using evidence from Southern and Northern countries I demonstrate that small farms are "multi-functional"-more productive, more efficient, andcontribute more to economic development than large farms. Small farmers can also make better stewards of natural resources, conserving biodiversity and safe-guarding the future sustainability of agricultural production.

....Small Farm Productivity

How many times have we heard that large farms are more productive than small farms? Or that they are more efficient? And that we need to consolidate land holdings to take advantage of that productivity and efficiency? The actual data shows exactly the reverse for productivity: that smaller farms produce far more per unit area than larger farms. Part of the problem lies in the confusing language used to compare the performance of different farm sizes. As long as we use crop yield as the measure of productivity, we will be giving an unfair advantage to larger farms.

Total Output versus Yield.

If we are to fairly evaluate the relative productivity of small and large farms, we must discard "yield" as our measurement tool.Yield means the production per unit area of a single crop, like "metric tons of corn per hectare." One can often obtain the highest yield of a single crop by planting it alone on a field--in a monoculture. But while a monoculture may allow for a high yield of one crop, it produces nothing else of use to the farmer. The bare ground between the crop rows..."empty niche space" in ecological terms...invites weed infestation. The presence of weeds makes the farmer invest labour in weeding or capital in herbicide.

Large farmers tend to plant monocultures because they are the simplest to manage with heavy machinary. Small farmers on the other hand, especially in the Third World are much more likely to plant crop mixtures--intercropping---where the empty niche space that would otherwise produce weeds instead is occupied by other crops. Thet also tend to combine or rotate crops and livestock, with manure serving to replenish soil fertility.

Such integrated farming systems produce far more per unit area than do monocultures. Though the yield per unit area of one crop-corn, for example- may be lower on a small farm than on a large monoculture, the total output per unit area, often composed of more than a dozen crops and various animal products, can be far, far higher. Therefore if we are to compare large and small farms, we should use 'total output' rather than yield. Total output is the sum of everything a small farm produces: various grains, fruits, vegetables, fodder, animal products etc. While 'yield' almost always biases the results towards large farms, total output allows us to see the true productivity advantage of small farms.

Surveying the data we indeed find that small farms almost always produce far more agricultural output per unit area than larger farms. This holds true whether we are talking about an industrial country like the United States, or any country in the Third World.".......