Introduction

We intuitively understand what biodiversity means, but it doesn’t mean the sum of all ecosystems, species and genetic material which probably most of us think it does.  It is the variability between and among them.

The IUCN Guide on the Convention on Biological Diversity identifies biodiversity as ‘an attribute of life’, but not the only one or always the most important.  Confused?  So am I.

Describing biodiversity as species diversity, genetic diversity and ecosystem diversity unpacks the portmanteau.  Each one has been well researched and we can set clear objectives for them.  The Convention sets three main objectives:

1. conserving the diversity of life,
2. ensuring where nature and natural resources are used, they are used sustainably
3. ensuring the uses of diversity are equitable.

The Convention has proved to be a powerful political tool, galvanising support for the broad concept of biodiversity, while its provisions strike a balance between conservation and development, which has often proved particularly difficult for developing countries.  Not least when pressure from global organisations places greater importance on restructuring and opening markets than on organic development. 

back to the top

Seed banks

Developments in agriculture have reduced diversity in order to increase the productivity of selected plants, animals and micro-organisms.  Cereal crops are a good example where the stalk length has been reduced, the grain and ear size increased and the period from germination to harvesting reduced.  Increasing resistance to drought or recent developments such as increasing rice’s ability to withstand more prolonged flooding or other important crops’ tolerance of higher levels of salinity.

Reducing diversity does have benefits, but there are downsides too. The UN Food & Agriculture Organisation estimates that 75% of the genetic diversity of crops has been lost. In the developed world our fruit and vegetables are limited to heavy cropping, reliable varieties with a long shelf live.  In the 19th century America had 7,100 apple varieties, but only 300 remain; the UK had over 8,000 and 2,300 remain, but few of those are generally grown.

Other plants are threatened by loss of habitat and climate change.  The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment estimates that the number of plant species will be reduced by between 10-15% due to loss of habitat by 2050.  This is based on only 12% of the Earth’s land mass being preserved in situ, but 45-70% of plants could be conserved in this area.  It does mean the other plants would be at risk.

Seed banks are an efficient and cost effective way of preserving seeds; many countries have local informal seed banks and national banks too.  War in Afghanistan and Iraq and the genocide in Rwanda destroyed many crops unique to those countries and their national seed banks have been lost too.  Ethiopia has preserved its national bank despite the turmoil of the last thirty years and there are natural seed banks in every country, hillsides in the Middle East still retain pockets of wild cereals.

back to the top

Kew’s Millennium Seed Bank Project (MSBP)

Kew’s Millennium Seed Bank Project (MSBP) aims to conserve 10% of the world’s seed plants by 2010, some 40,000 species, mainly from dry lands. Dryland species are particularly important as drylands account for one third of the Earth’s land mass and are home to one fifth of the population, in some of the poorest countries.  Many of the plant species are under threat from desertification and are important to human survival as food, medicine, forage for livestock of fuel wood.

The seeds are stored in the UK under the terms and conditions of a bilateral Access and Benefit Sharing Agreement.  Partners hold duplicate sets of the seeds and Kew cannot transfer seeds to commercial or other third parties.

MSBP also aims to promote bilateral research, training and capacity building relationships worldwide to support and advance seed conservation. These meet the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation targets of Promoting education and awareness about plant diversity and Building capacity for the conservation of plant diversity.

back to the top

Svalbard Seed Bank

The Norwegian Government and the Global Crop Diversity Trust have built an International Seed Vault in the Artic on the Svalbard Islands about 620 miles from the North Pole.  The seed bank is in a reinforced concrete tunnel drilled 70 metres into a mountain.  It will not rely on artificial refrigeration, as the perma frost will ensure the temperature never rises above freezing.

Stored at –18C the seeds will be viable for thousands of years and should a country lose a species it can be replaced.  It will store 3 million seed samples from every country in the world. 

Climate change, changing soil fertility and population pressures will make seed banks of more important rather than less, as we need to develop new crop varieties.

There are some 1,400 seed banks, but Kew’s at Ardingly, West Sussex and the Svalbard’s are global in their conservation mission.  They are in blast and radiation underground facilities, although Kew cannot boast the added protection of Svalbard’s polar bears.

back to the top

Preserving ecosystems

While national parks preserve areas of outstanding natural beauty, they are also representative of different ecosystems. Only conservation in situ allows natural processes of evolution to operate on whole plant and animal communities, including soil microbes, mycorrhiza and invertebrates, to function and interact fully within the ecosystem.  It is essential, to the development of resistance to fungal and other diseases.

back to the top

Namaqualand

‘Located in south-western southern Africa, Namaqualand is a desert of some 60,000 km2 extent.  It is a winter-rainfall desert where most areas receive less than 150 mm of actual rain per year.  Plant geographers define Namaqualand as that part of southern Africa’s Succulent Karoo that is strongly influenced by winter rainfall and fog.  Distracted by fields of spring flowers, most visitors to Namaqualand do not appreciate it for what it is: a desert of unrivalled plant wealth.

In comparison with other deserts of the world, Namaqualand has many unique botanical features. Firstly, the diversity of species is unparalleled.  Namaqualand has a flora of about 3000 species distributed among 648 genera and 107 families.

This is a very large number of species, at least four times richer than for similar-sized areas of winter-rainfall deserts in the Americas, North Africa and the Middle East. The region also has an extraordinarily high level of endemism, with about half of its plant species found nowhere else.

The second special feature of Namaqualand’s flora is the extraordinarily high number of succulents, especially leaf succulents. There are about 1000 succulent species in the region, comprising about one third of the flora and 10% of the world’s succulents.

Finally, recent research has revealed another special aspect of Namaqualand’s plant life: a wealth of highly specialized pollination systems.  The bright floral displays of spring are actually attempts by short-lived plants to attract scarce pollinators so that they might set sufficient seed for survival.

In order to overcome this acute shortage of pollinators, many of the plants have developed a niche market for specialized pollinators.  Whole groups of plants, from many different genera, may be pollinated by a single pollinator such as a long-tongued fly; or a single species may be exclusively pollinated by an insect vector – a wasp, bee or bee-fly.’

back to the top

The unsustainable use of nature and natural resources

‘Sadly, the unique plants of Namaqualand have been little appreciated by those who have plundered this amazing desert for its riches. Over the centuries, but especially during the past 50 years, there has been a multi-pronged assault on its natural bounty.

When the earliest diamond miners, with pick and shovel, exposed the gem-studded gravels along its shore, they gave no thought to the value of the plants or living topsoil that was carelessly cast aside. Likewise, the first wave of settled pastoralists thought only of converting shrubs into mutton; in those early times of frontier hardship and seemingly inexhaustible resources, sustainability was not an issue.

Today’s Namaqualand is one of fixed boundaries, shrinking space and degraded ecosystems. The principal threat by far is degradation associated with overgrazing by livestock – mainly goats and sheep – especially on land that is communally managed by people of Nama descent.

Crowded into “reserves” established in colonial times, subsistence farmers need more land to relieve the pressure on exhausted pastures and to provide a buffer against increasing poverty, itself a consequence of dwindling jobs in depleted mines. The current political solution – the expansion of communally-owned land, as is happening now – provides only a short-term relief.

Ultimately, this land will also be desertified unless some way can be found to manage it within the limits imposed by its production potential. And how is this to be done in the context of grinding poverty and communal access to resources?’3

back to the top

Kew scientists collaboration on dry woodland in NE Brazil

MSBP is preserving species mainly from drylands and is transferring knowledge and expertise on seed conservation.  Kew scientists are also undertaking research in collaboration with local communities and national scientist.  In NE Brazil there has been over exploitation of dry deciduous woodland including felling, leading to soil erosion so neither trees or crops grow.  A sustainable community wood project has been set up with Plantas do Nordeste and Kew to investigate several areas of woodland and a selection of tree species. 

It aims to determine which harvesting techniques will maintain a healthy woodland habitat while meeting the needs of local people for timber and fuel.  Coppicing, pollarding and crown thinning are options.  Further research is looking at XXXXX

back to the top

However, the CBD is not without problems.

‘Sometimes even the best of intentions can go tragically wrong. I fear that some aspects of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are providing the latest example of this familiar syndrome.

The CBD, which entered into force at the end of 1993 and now has over 170 Parties, was designed to facilitate access to genetic resources for environmentally sound uses by other Contracting Parties, on mutually agreed terms and subject to prior informed consent.

Scientists would continue their exchanges with other scientists, and if great profit ensured, the spoils would be shared equitably. Sounds fair, doesn’t it? But contrary to the noble intentions, some measures adopted under the guise of the CBD have restricted the free flow of the specimens upon which much botanical work depends.

Quite understandably, governments, especially in the species-rich countries of the tropics, are anxious to ensure that they get a fair share of any profits that may come from “their” genetic resources – the CBD says that governments have sovereignty over the biological resources found within their borders. So they are passing laws that restrict the flow of live plants, herbarium specimens, seeds, pollen, or other kinds of genetic materials.

Conservationists need to take their fair share of the blame for this sad turn of events. In their zeal to convince governments to conserve the tropical forests, some have made extravagant claims of “green gold” hidden in the rainforest. The late Alwyn Gentry, for example, suggested that drugs in tropical forests are worth US$900 billion, and the economist David Pearce supported a value of $420 billion; neither suggested who would pay such amounts, or to whom.

More conservatively, botanists from the New York Botanical Garden suggested that a complete collection and screening of all tropical plant species should be worth about $2–3 billion to a private pharmaceutical company and as much as $147 billion to society as a whole.  Experts estimate that the current value of plant-based drugs is more than US$200 billion a year worldwide, but virtually none of this money finds its way back to the communities where the plants are found, often making sacrifices so the plants can be conserved.’

Progress towards the three main objectives of the Convention on Biodiversity is slow; biodiversity is a powerful political concept and conservation and sustainability are not as powerful as economics.  We have made a good start – the reality is that poverty and responsible business practices determine whether resources are used sustainably.

back to the top

Additional Information

1. The World Conservation Union, www.iugn.org
2. Convention on Biological Diversity
3. Plant Talk No22/23, Namaqualand is no ordinary desert. Richard Cowling and Shirley Pierce. July 2000. www.plant-talk.org
4. Kew Scientist Issue 18,  October 2000.   www.rbgkew.org.uk/kewscientist
5. Plant Talk No17, Jeffrey A. McNeely, Chief Scientist, IUCN – The World Conservation Union, Switzerland.  April 1999. www.plant-talk.org

back to the top