Is biodiversity conservation mere tree plantation?
Biodiversity Conservation Projects are designed to change something, to protect biodiversity. One of the major differences between biodiversity conservation projects and other projects, however, is that some people think it is often difficult to define -- in clear, operational terms -- precisely what it is that biodiversity conservation projects are trying to achieve. In a business setting, the project goal is usually financial profit and it is usually pretty easy to evaluate how much money a company is making or losing. But for biodiversity conservation projects, what practical and meaningful measures of project impact are available to us? In many fields, the cause-and-effect relationships between specific interventions and resulting impacts are easy to see. They are not so apparent in conservation. This makes it difficult to measure the impact of a project on the biodiversity in a given area. Some of the government agencies and environmental NGOs discuss their on-going biodiversity conservation projects splendidly describing the numbers of saplings or species they have planted or the land area they have brought under plantation. Well this may be an effort to restore the degraded habitat -- an entity of the ecosystem but what about addressing the issues or factors that have led to the degradation of the habitats? Will tree plantation alone help restore other components and elements of biodiversity and ecological processes? Another big issue in biodiversity conservation projects is the involvement of the community members in the project activities and to raise their awareness level. Innumerable meetings are organized with the community members, huge billboards hoisted and modest amounts of project fund utilized for this purpose, but are there any evaluations done to measure the impact of such meetings at the end of the day? Further, sporadic visits are made to the project sites, for example, to do a bird census and if during one such visit the numbers of birds observed are higher than previous count blatant statements are made like the project is doing good in biodiversity conservation as the numbers of birds are more than previously recorded. Birds are good indicators of the state of the ecosystem if the bird populations are monitored regularly but are such statements verified against project activities, other environmental or physical factors and project outcomes? The major problem is the misperception about the way biodiversity conservation projects should be treated. The general notion about all development or donor-funded projects is that they should produce results. This is a valid consideration for conservation projects too. But conservation projects have their limitations since they are based on the biodiversity parameters or indicators and changes in the biodiversity indicators cannot usually give results in the short span of the project life, say three to five years. However the target should be to give appropriate attention to reduce the threats or factors that are detrimental to the biodiversity; the ecosystem, ecological niches and ecosystem functions that support the biodiversity. It is the threat level that needs to be targeted, monitored and assessed periodically for conservation projects. Isn't it very much relevant to ask what the efficacy of plantation for habitat restoration is when the factors/threats that destroy the forests within the project area persist in similar magnitude? Several examples can be cited where plantations have been successfully raised but other threat factors were not addressed adequately resulting in physical changes in the land use characteristics, habitat degradation (either due to mono-culture or exotic species or lack of undergrowth or species diversity), and loss of biodiversity in that particular area. Take for example the mangroves of Sonadia Island. Forest Department (FD) claims it to be theirs while the district administration thinks otherwise as it is listed as khas land and the Department of Environment (DOE) treats it as an Ecologically Critical Area (ECA). The district administration from time to time leased large chunks of mangrove forested areas in the name of revenue collection to local politically-backed and influential people for conversion to shrimp farms and salt pans. FD, members of the civil society and environmental NGOs objected to such leasing as this involved clearing of vast areas of mangroves and land grabbing by claiming more than what was actually allotted to the lessee in the lease agreement. With the declaration of ECA in 1999 DOE was supposed to legally manage it as a protected area. But establishment of shrimp farms and salt pans within an ECA continued unabated until last year when this caretaker government (CTG) took over the country's helm. Political backing to some local influential people and support by the government machinery had led to the destruction of thousands of acres of precious mangrove forests to a state of no return. After 1/11, in February last year with financial support from Coastal & Wetland Biodiversity Management Project (CWBMP), DOE and assistance from the Cox's Bazaar district administration, FD and law enforcing agencies some of the illegal shrimp farms and salt pans were evicted and 350 hectares of forest land recovered from the land-grabbers. Mangrove plantations were done by FD (190 h) and CWBMP-contracted NGO, Bangladesh Centre for Village Development (BCVD), (160 h) in those recovered land. The land grabbers are so influential that they are now planning to regain control. A proof of this in last April 2008 further eviction was not possible. Now if we look into this case the major threat factor was widespread deforestation and illegal land grabbing that was continuing unabated right under the nose of the district administration, FD and the DOE. This threat was never effectively addressed by the past governments that resulted in the steady loss of habitat, biodiversity and ecological functions. Mangrove ecosystem is one of the highest biomass producers and acts as nursery for aquatic biodiversity including fisheries, reservoir for carbon sequestration, and first line of defence against tidal surges. The reduction of the threats to biodiversity is directly related to the political will, commitment and government's intention to conserve biodiversity. It is pertinent to mention that biodiversity is for human welfare and conservation is one of the means to garner that benefit through wise use. The conservation projects may help the government identify the threats, suggest means for addressing those threats, but it is the political will and the government's commitment to take appropriate actions to reduce the threats to create conducive environment for the biodiversity to flourish. Apathy in timely decisions and actions from the government side escalates the threats creating a situation of no return. No matter how much land area we plant biodiversity will not be benefited unless the threats are targeted, reduced and regulated. The area of threat reduction is the one that plays a significant role in the success of conservation projects. It is also the area that involves players from multiple sectors where coordination is arduous to achieve. If the intentions of the government are clear and there is a political will to back up the biodiversity conservation intentions of the government the inter-sectoral coordination glitch among the various government agencies can be resolved. Take for example, the road constructed in St. Martin's Island bisecting the lagoon restricting water flow (clearly visible in the Google map) and exterminating the biodiversity that survived on the rocky wetland. The road was constructed by LGED knowing well that the island is an ECA and that the MOEF is the responsible ministry for ECAs. Had any information been exchanged among the agencies concerned prior to the construction of the road better options would have been available without altering the physical landscape of the lagoon. This was an act of sheer departmental egotism backed by bureaucrats and political pundits since many of them own landed properties in proximity and a luxurious hospital was built along the road for the rich. Among other factors that are imperative to be addressed in biodiversity conservation projects is the socio-biological factor but due to pressures from the political leaders and government bureaucrats to show that something is being done for the people the social factors become the primary objectives while the biodiversity conservation issues diffuse in the thin air. The mere fact that wellbeing of biodiversity is directly related to human welfare is often forgotten or ignored and just tree plantations remain. The writer is Member, IUCN/Commission on Ecosystem Management and Vice Chair, IUCN/SSC/Crocodile Specialist Group (West Asia) & Director, Reptiles Farm Limited.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments