Virtually all of Earth’s ecosystems have been dramatically transformed through human actions and ecosystems continue to be converted for agricultural and other uses. The current loss of biodiversity and the related changes in the environment are now faster than ever before in human history and there is no sign of this process slowing down. Many animal and plant populations have declined in numbers, geographical spread, or both. Species extinction is a natural part of Earth’s history. But Human activity in the past few decades has increased the extinction rate by at least 100 times compared to the natural rate.
The loss of biodiversity (among ecosystems, between species and within species – genetic) has important consequences on the livelihoods and the wellbeing of people, especially the poor being more directly dependent on natural resources. For them biodiversity loss means losing its 1. direct benefits (species that furnish a certain wood quality and quantity, wild plants, fruits, mushrooms, bushmeat, natural pharmceutical products etc.) and 2. being more exposed to the impact of the loss of its functional value: the accelerated loss of species causes changes in the ecological structure and integrity of agraric and forest ecosystems: Pollinisation services get lost, Pests and plant-diseases are more likely to occur, long-term equilibriums of water cycles as well as soil content and structure get seriously damaged. Erosion and a decline of the quality and the quantity of water is the effect. 3. Biodiversity or expressed in oldfashioned words “Nature with all its plants, mushrooms, animal species and micro-organisms” has also a cultural value for people; lots of species are of social, aesthetic and spiritual importance for rural populations, alone or in their joint presence. After the right of every species to exist (intrinsic value), which might not be considered in the context of poverty alleviation or pro poor growth, every species has a 4. optional or innovation-value, p.e. an undiscovered genetic or ecological potential (some species were found to be of a priceless value for their pharmaceutical content, for their ability to restore soils, ecosystems or watersheds etc. All these values can’t be maintained or proven by technocratic “in vitro” conservation of species in gene banks.
These values may seem neglegible on the first view, compared to the benefits individuals may gain in the short term. But improved valuation techniques and growing knowledge about ecoystems revealed that the full costs of careless land-use conversion and biodiversity loss often exceed the long-term benefits. Even when the costs and benefits are not entirely known, a precautionary approach is justified because costs could be high and changes are irreversible once species are lost.
So far the following actions undertaken in order to conserve biodiversity have been successful in limiting the many consequences of biodiversity loss: 1. integration in agriculture and forestry sectors, 2. strengthening instutions and their laws, policies and capabilities, 3. payments as incentives to conserve biodiversity or transfer of ownership rights, 4. protected areas, 5. prevention and early intervention against invasive species.
The 2002 agreed 2010 biodiversity target by the Parties of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) of “achieving a significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss at all levels” however won’t be met unless unprecedented additional efforts are made.
This is the first joint CIFOR and ICRAF research investigation, which is proposed to be funded by SDC. Apart from the core funding for the two CGIAR-centres, SDC funded so far mainly CIFOR-projects, from 1995 to 2006: 1.6 Mio SFr.[1], but supported also the “African Highlands Initiative” with 1.5 Mio (in which ICRAF was a main partner). – Scientists as well as the leading environmental NGOs acknowledged that areas protected for biodiversity need to be managed as a part of the surrounding bio-cultural matrix (landscape). Optimal biodiversity in a landscape can only be preserved if the connectivity-effects of matrix-elements (p.e. hedges, buffer areas etc) as stepping stones are maintained. As a result of reknown reports like “matrix matters” CIFOR and ICRAF decided to investigate in the new challenges of biodiversity management and protection with the mean of an entity linking both centers and mainstreaming the theme. This Biodiversity-platform[2] was established in January 2006 and SDC committed to it by contributing funds for the secondment of an IC–scientist (Intercooperation, Bern), who is now coordinating this platform in Bogor, Indonesia. The Platform in now proposing a research investigation in ten megadiverse countries and nine biodiversity-hotspots: Indonesia (Sumatra and Kalimantan), Laos-Vietnam, Uganda-Kenya, Kenya, Cameroon-Congo-Central Africa, Madagascar (East and West Coast), Brazil.
[1] Total: 1995-2006 CIFOR project funding (without core funds): 1’668’500 SFr.
1995-1998 – Testing Criteria for Sustainable Forest Management 187’500 SFr.
1998-2003 – Stakeholders and Biodiversity in the forests of the Future 891’000 SFr.
2003-2006 – Stakeholders and Biodiversity at the local level 590’000 SFr.
[2] Recall of the objectives of the biodiversity-platform:
1. Support of CIFOR- and ICRAF staff in Biodiversity-linked activities
2. Assessment of opportunities
3. Facilitation of implementation of biodiversity-friendly and pro-poor rural management decisions (through valuation of biodiversity products and services
4. Building Bridges between research centres for development issues
5. Follow-up of SDC-programs and information exchange with SDC/NRE
