Palm | Kelapa Sawit

“Continued reliance on a strategy of setting aside land and marine territories as "protected areas" is insufficient to stem global biodiversity loss, according to a comprehensive assessment published today in the journal Marine Ecology Progress Series.”

On July 28th, 2011 the United Nations University publicly released a study done on global biodiversity. The study is based on existing literature and global data on human threats and biodiversity loss. The claim is biodiversity loss is underestimated and addressing the problem with protected areas has been grossly overestimated. Lead author, Camilo Mora, of University of Hawaii stated, “There is an increasingly well documented global trend in biodiversity loss, triggered by a host of human activities." Explained in the study is how the expectation of growth in the human population and the increase in our consumption levels points towards an unsustainable toll on the Earth’s ecological resources and services which accelerates the rate at which biodiversity is being lost. Based on previous research, it was alarming to find out that under the global existing conditions of human consumption and our old school situation of human population growth, the cumulative and increasing use of natural resources of humanity will amount to the productivity of up to 27 Earths by 2050. 

                                                                                 

What are Biodiversity Hotspots?
The concept of biodiversity hotspots was penned by British ecologist Norman Myers in 1988.        
        • Myers reasoned that a prudent conservation strategy would be to target dollars and research at those
          regions where these threats are greatest to the greatest number of species.

 Due to limited resources and time in the mid 1990s, Meyers with partners at Conservation International worked out a formula that would designate a hotspot and strategize how they would go about tackling the protection of species.
        • The region must support at least 1,500 plant species found nowhere else in the world.
        • It must have lost at least 70 percent of its original habitat.

Conservationists Name Nine New "Biodiversity Hotspots"
  Nine new "biodiversity hotspots” were named by conservationists. These regions are priorities due to their incredible species richness that has been under constant assault from human activity. All nine of these biodiversity hotspots have lost at least 70 percent of their original natural habitat. About half of all the plant and animal species on Earth are found in these hotspots, which originally covered 15.7 percent of the Earth's surface area. Hotspots are home to 24 families of plants and animals that cannot be found anywhere else in the world. Only about a tenth of their original habitat remains. Their ecosystems account for a high percentage of global biodiversity. Scientists say many of these regions face tremendous pressure from logging, agriculture, hunting, and climate change.

Base map source: USGS National Atlas. http://www.fs.fed.us/monarchbutterfly/migration/index.shtml

Patricio Robles Gil/Sierra Madre  Pinyon pine forest in the Chisos Mountains, Big Bend National Park, Texas.

 Edward J. Otten wrote many articles on the Effect of Human Population on Biodiversity. He states that according to Erhlich’s theory, humans must voluntarily control their numbers or nature will definitely control them. (through methods that are unpleasant for humans). The rapid rise of growth in the human population is having a grave impact on biodiversity. The destruction of other species by humans will ultimately lead to the destruction of the human species through natural selection.

Image from Hawaii http://www.opala.org/solid_waste/Illegal_Dumping_Laws.html

Off the delta region coast of Nigeria, where 90 percent of their foreign exchange revenue comes from, there are Islands being lost to the Atlantic Ocean. While some of this loss is being blamed on rising waters due to global warming, a majority of the loss is being blamed on erosion of the land.

While losing the land is not good, an intervention has taken place by the Heinrich Boll Foundation, to run a workshop on how to stop the effects of erosion. The workshop focused on teaching the native Islanders to embrace bio-technical intervention to control erosion. Also there were educational workshops on how planting trees and taking care of the land will lead to slower or no erosion of soil on the Island.

Even in a country that is half the globe away from us, measures are being taken to ensure that land is not continually lost to erosion. Prevention is key in keeping the land from going into the ocean and being lost forever.

To find out more on what is being done to prevent the Islands off Nigeria from going into the Atlantic, please check out the link below.

http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/sunday_magazine/article05/090510?pdate=090510&ptitle=Nigeria's%20Islands%20Lost%20To%20Atlantic%20Ocean

Sometimes success can't be measured, or may even go un-noticed. Luckily in the case of environmental sustainability, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) makes sure that won't happen.

A new study by the NRCS finds that farmers and ranchers are producing more while using less. This is great news because it is helping to reduce the environmental footprint when it comes to food and fiber production in the US.

The study also found that soil erosion is continuing to decline because of more sustainable practices. The study finds that there has been a "50 percent decline in erosion of cropland by wind and water since 1982."

Small steps make big differences in creating sustainable practices. What are you doing to be more sustainable in your everyday life? We want you to post the steps you are taking to do your part in preventing soil erosion. Who knows, maybe you'll inspire somebody reading your comments to incorporate the same practice in their everyday life.

Remember, one small step can snowball into global change.

Source:
http://agwired.com/2010/04/29/american-agricultures-environmental-success/

Ms Hillary Chew is a respected environmental campaigner for the Star and should not write words as though they were from my statements. I never said that oil palm plantations are good habitats for orang utans. Additionally, I have never seen statements by the oil palm industry insisting that the oil palm plantations have no less biological diversity than the natural forests. These are Ms Chew's own words.

Those attending the recent orang utan colloquium are free to report in any way they like. In my view, the most important finding is the report by Dr Acrenaz that the orang utans do indeed feed on the loose fruits of the oil palm. Previously, the other orang utan "experts" insisted that orang utans do not eat the oil palm fruits.

The second finding is the observation that the orang utans are attracted to revisit or transit the fragmented forests nearby the oil palm plantations. Why is it that they do not always stay in the pristine permanent forest reserves which cover almost 50 % of total Sabah land area. Maybe the pristine forest has food easily available only during fruit seasons. The oil palm plantations have fruits all year round. Being clever animals, the orang utans adapt even to living in mangrove forests near the oil palm plantations.

The meeting agreed that oil palm fruits alone would not provide a balanced diet for the long term survival of the orang utans. That is why the resolution of the colloquium was to establish forest corridors to connect the fragmented forests with the main forest reserve to facilitate the movements of the orang utans back to the main pristine forest which is supposed to be their favourite habitat.

What MPOC likes to do is to continue funding orang utan studies to enhance the survival potential of these protected animals. In addition, we are trying to help implement the establishment of the forest corridors as rightly pointed out by Ms Chew. MPOC is the custodian of the Palm Oil Wild Life Conservation Fund, and would match contributions made on approved projects on conservation such as creation of the forest corridors based on availability of the fund.

Mr Sean Whyte complained in the media as an NGO that the NGOs are doing a good job telling the truth about the manner that the oil palm industry is run. This is a good start and the role played by the NGO is most appreciated. As far as Malaysian oil palm industry is concerned, there are numerous laws in this country to protect the industry, environment and the people. NGOs are encouraged to report to the authorities of any wrong-doings, and culprits would be punished. If no report of wrong-doings can be submitted, then NGOs are simply acting as critiques spreading erroneous assumptions and "it was reported" type "facts" again and again. Let us have the complaints in the form of an official report, and the industry through its enforcement body such as the MPOB can response to the complaints. Thank you for your good intention.

Yusof Basiron CEO MPOC

They are causing global warming! There is a recent article in “Wired” magazine that claims old growth or virgin forests contribute to global warming. Listen to what they say: “Over its lifetime, a tree shifts from being a vacuum cleaner for atmospheric carbon to an emitter. A tree absorbs roughly 1,500 pounds of carbon dioxide in its first 55 years. After that, its growth slows, and it takes in less carbon. Left untouched, it ultimately rots or burns and all that carbon dioxide gets released”. As you can see, this is no more than using climate change to log the last remaining virgin forests. Notice that yearly figure of 55—that’s exactly when timber companies like to log their tree farms. “After that its growth slows and takes in less carbon”: well let me inform them that the difference in a 55 year old tree and a 200 year old tree is tremendous—it takes in more carbon during that stage than the first 55—that’s why they are so big! “Left untouched, it ultimately rots or burns and all that carbon dioxide gets released”. They make it sound like ancient forests burn easy and the truth is they are more resistant to fire than a tree farm. Rotting logs? The Willamette National Forest defines old growth forests with about 4 down trees per acre (with 200 year old trees). Then they give us this bit of advice: “A well-managed tree farm acts like a factory for sucking CO₂ out of the atmosphere, so the most climate-friendly policy is to continually cut down trees and plant new ones.” Wow, they don’t care about biodiversity, the creatures that live in those down trees or the forest, the great watersheds, inspiration, people’s livelihoods, and sentient and non-sentient beings (trees). This kind of attitude is what got us in this mess; sustainability is using the land for our needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs. I guess all they think the next one needs is clear cuts with brush and small trees, invasive weeds, no recreation, few animals, and fire hazards. Trees grow fast in Oregon and there is no reason to stop logging public lands, but this kind of logic evades me.

David Best-PSU student

Here is an informative survey and quiz about Oregon’s old growth forests.

Click here

~Anna