DOCSLIB.ORG

A Call to Protect Food Systems from Genetic Extinction Technology: the Global Food and Agriculture Movement Says NO to Release of Gene Drives

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Call to Protect Food Systems from Genetic Extinction Technology: the Global Food and Agriculture Movement Says NO to Release of Gene Drives A Call to Protect Food Systems from Genetic Extinction Technology: The Global Food and Agriculture Movement Says NO to Release of Gene Drives Gene drives are new tools that force genetically engineered traits through entire populations of insects, plants, animals and other organisms. This invasive technology represents a deliberate attempt to create a new form of genetic pollution. Gene Drives may drive species to extinction and undermine sustainable and equitable food and agriculture. Gene drives threaten natural systems. If released experimentally into the environment they may spread engineered genes uncontrollably through wild and domesticated species. This could alter ecological systems and food webs, harm biodiversity and eradicate beneficial organisms such as pollinators. Gene drives could disrupt lands, waters, food and fiber economies and harm Indigenous and peasant agroecological practices and cultures. Gene drives are being developed for use in agriculture. If applied, they may make farms even more genetically uniform and foreclose farmers’ rights, as enshrined, among others, in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and other People Working in Rural Areas. Use of gene drives may further entrench a system of genetically-engineered industrial agriculture, extend agro-toxin use and concentrate corporate control over global food systems, undermining the food sovereignty of farmers, food workers and consumers. Gene drives hinder the realization of human rights including rights to healthy, ecologically-produced and culturally appropriate food and nutrition. We, the undersigned, call for a global moratorium on any release of engineered gene drives. This moratorium is necessary to affirm the precautionary principle, which is enshrined in international law, and to protect life on Earth as well as our food supply. Letter continued on next page... Organizational signatories include: The Global Food and Agriculture Movement Says NO to Release of Gene Drives We urge governments to establish participatory We oppose current experiments to ‘test’ risky technology assessment processes and to respect transgenic organisms as a step towards future and fulfill the full free, prior and informed consent of release of gene drive organisms.1 Indigenous Peoples and other affected populations We commit ourselves to the protection of food for all emerging biotechnologies, including gene systems, cultures, ecosystems and the rights, drives - as enshrined in the UN Declaration on the livelihoods and food sovereignty of those who work Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other international in and depend on agriculture and food production. agreements. This is to protect our rights to preserve biodiversity and traditional knowledge. Join the growing list of those opposing gene drives in agriculture. If your organization would like to sign on please email: [email protected] to add your or your organization’s name. International and Regional Organizations IFOAM Organics International Heinrich Böll Foundation GRAIN IFOAM Asia Navdanya International Groupe international d’études transdisciplinaires (GIET) IFOAM Europe Indigenous Environmental Network Centro Internazionale Crocevia IFOAM North America FIAN International ActionAid International Global Forest Coalition La Via Campesina International International Center for Technology Third World Network Action Group on Erosion, Technology Assessment and Concentration (ETC Group) (Canada) Forest Peoples Programme The Society for International Alianza por la Biodiversidad en América IUF International (The International Development (SID) Latina Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, The ProTerra Foundation Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Focus on the Global South Workers’ Associations) 1 The multi-million dollar ‘Target Malaria’ project from London, UK is currently releasing non-gene drive transgenic mosquitoes in West Africa as a means to ‘test’ the regulatory systems for a future release of gene-drive equipped mosquitoes. The Global Food and Agriculture Movement Says NO to Release of Gene Drives Africa Health of Mother Earth Foundation, Fellowship of Christian Councils and Jinkun (reseau National Pour Une HOMEF (Nigeria) Churches in West Africa (FECCIWA) Gestion Durable Des Resources Génétiques Biowatch South Africa (South Africa) Friends of the Earth Africa (FoEA) Jeunes Volontaires pour l’Environnement PELUM Kenya (Kenya) Friends of the Earth Cameroon/ (JVE International) Centre pour l’Environnement et le Earth Life Africa (South Africa) Développement La Via Campesina Africa (LVC Africa) African Center for Biodiversity- ACB Friends of the Earth Ghana/ Network of Farmers’ and Agricultural (South Africa) Environmental Rights Action (ERA) Producers’ Organizations of West Africa Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (ROPPA) Friends of the Earth Togo/ Les Amis de (AFSA) la Terre Togo Participatory Ecological Land Use African Biodiversity Network (ABN) Management (PELUM) Association Friends of the Earth Mozambique/ Association Ouest Africaine pour le Justica Ambiental (JA!) Plate-forme Régionale des Organisations Développement de la Pêche Artisanale Paysannes d’Afrique Centrale (PROPAC) Friends of the Earth Uganda/ NAPE (ADEPA) (National Association of Professional Réseau Africain pour le Droit à Biodiversity and Biosafety Coalition of Environmentalists) l’Alimentation (RAPDA –Togo) Kenya (BIBA) Friends of the Earth Liberia/ Sustainable Rural Women’s Assembly (RWA) Coalition pour la Protection du Development Institute (SDI) Tanzanian Alliance for Biodiversity Patrimoine Génétique Africaine Friends of the Earth Sierra Leone (TABIO) (COPAGEN) Groundwork/Friends of the Earth South Union Africaine des Consommateurs Comité Ouest Africain de Semences Africa (UAC) Paysannes (COASP) Lawyers’ Environmental Action Team World Neighbours Comparing and Supporting Endogenous (LEAT)/Friends of the Earth Tanzania Development (COMPAS Africa) Terre à Vie (Burkina Faso) Guamina / Friends of the Earth Mali Eastern and Southern Africa Small Scale Maudesco/Friends of the Earth Mauritius Farmers Forum (ESAFF) Groundswell West Africa (GWA) Dajopen Waste Management Eastern and Southern African Pastoralists Institut Africain pour le Développement Zambia Alliance for Agroecology and Network Economique et Social (INADES- Biodiversity (ZAAB) Formation) Fahamu Africa Banlieues Du Monde Mauritanie Indigenous Peoples of Africa Faith & Justice Network of the Mano Coordinating Committee (IPACC) River Basin (FJN) Institut Panafricain pour la Citoyenneté, Farm-Saved Seeds Network (FASSNET) les Consommateurs et le Développement Fédération Agroécologique du Bénin (CICODEV Africa) (FAEB) Asia / Oceania Mothers Against Genetic Engineering- GE FREE NZ Taitokerau (New Zealand) Friends of the Earth Australia (Australia) MAdGE (Australia) GE FREE New Zealand (New Zealand) Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance GM-Free Australia Alliance (Australia) La Via Campesina-South Asia Consumers Union of Japan Pesticide Action Group WA (Australia) Citizens’ Coalition for Economic Justice NO! GMO Campaign (Japan) FoodWatch WA (Australia) (South Korea, Right Livelihood Award GM-Free India 2003) Gene Ethics (Australia) Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic SEARICE - Southeast Asia Regional Environment Support Group (India) Agriculture (ASHA) (India) Initiatives for Community Empowerment Hazards Centre (Sanchal Foundation) UBINIG (Bangladesh) (India) Europe Biofuelwatch (United Kingdom) A Sud - Ecologia e Cooperazione ONLUS Pole-Risques (France) (Italy) Initiative for GE-free Seeds and Breeding Sativa Rheinau AG (Switzerland) (Germany) Slow Food Deutschland (Germany) ReinSaat KG (Austria) Kultursaat e.V. (Germany) Foundation on Future Farming (Germany) Forschung & Züchtung Dottenfelderhof Family Farmers Organization Germany Save our Seeds (Germany) (‘Research & Breeding Dottenfelderhof’) (Arbeitsgemeinschaft bäuerliche (Germany) GM Watch UK (United Kingdom) Landwirtschaft (AbL) e.V.) (Germany) The Global Food and Agriculture Movement Says NO to Release of Gene Drives Europe (continued) Swiss Alliance for GE Free Agriculture Corporate Europe Observatory Le Potazer de Villard (Switzerland) Sciences Citoyennes (France) Demeter e.V. (Germany) We Effect (Sweden) Friends of the Earth Europe Agrar Koordination (Germany) ELTE Nature Conservation Club (Hungary) Biodiversité échanges et diffusion Friends of the Earth Austria - GLOBAL Friends of the Earth France/ les Amis de d’expériences (BEDE) 2000 la Terre Foll’Avoine Bread for the World Friends of the Earth Bosnia and Mouvement de l’Agriculture Bio- Bundesverband Naturkost Naturwaren Herzegovina/ Centar za zivotnu sredinu Dynamique (BNN) e.V. Friends of the Earth Germany/ Bund für Association for Farmers Rights Defense, Dachverband Kulturpflanzen- und Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland AFRD Nutztiervielfalt e.V. (BUND) Latin America Acción Ecológica (Ecuador) Asociación Red de Coordinación en Instituto de Estudios Ecologistas, Biodiversidad (Ecuador) Associação Brasileira de Agroecologia (Brasil) Iniciativa Amotocodie (Paraguay) Instituto de Salud Socioambiental de la Facultad de Cs. Médicas, UNR, Via Organica (Mexico) Heñoi (Paraguay) (Argentina) CESTA Amigos de la Tierra El Salvador REDES-AT, REDES-Amigos de la Tierra BASE-IS, (Paraguay) (El Salvador) (Uruguay) Agricultura Familiar Colombia Centro Ecológico (Brazil) North America Hawai’i SEED (US) Vigilance OGM (Canada) National Family Farm Coalition (US) Non-GMO
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Connecting Activism and Academia
    Right Livelihood Award 40th Anniversary Bangkok Conference ​ ​ Education for Right Livelihood: ​ Connecting Activism and Academia Conference and Public Forum Friday, 21 February 2020 Right Livelihood Award Laureates’ Profiles ​ BASSEY, Nnimmo (Nigeria): Environment/oil, received the Right Livelihood Award in 2010. Nnimmo Bassey is a Nigerian architect, environmental activist, author and poet. Bassey started his work on human rights issues in the 1980s as a member of the Board of Directors of Nigeria’s Civil Liberties Organisation. In 1993, he co-founded Environmental Rights Action (ERA), also known as Friends of the Earth Nigeria, an advocacy NGO that deals with environmental human rights issues in the country. Bassey was ERA’s Executive Director for two decades and is still the chair of its Management Board. Bassey’s primary campaigning focuses on oil and the enormous damage inflicted on Nigerian communities and neighbouring countries where oil is extracted (such as Angola, Cameroon, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, and Sudan). He works on supporting a broad movement across sub-Saharan African countries where new finds of oil are being made. Bassey is also central to the Right Livelihood College campus at The University of Port Harcourt in Nigeria. 1 FERNANDO, Basil; Asian Human Rights Commission (Hong Kong): Human rights, social action, received the Right Livelihood Award in 2014. Basil Fernando is an activist, author and poet. He has been active in human rights and social action issues ever since his youth. He practised law from 1980 to 1989 at the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, with an emphasis on criminal law, employment law and human rights law.
    [Show full text]
  • SEKEM Initiative (1977)
    FACTSHEET Egypt – SEKEM Initiative (1977) IN BRIEF The SEKEM Initiative uses biodynamic agricultural methods to revitalize desert land and develop agricultural business in Egypt. The SEKEM mission entails a holistic approach focusing on agricultural production on farms, sustainable ecological ma- nagement, and enabling knowledge transfer, education and conscious consumption. Approximately 684 hectares of desert land have been reclaimed, of which 100% is operated by biodynamic agriculture methods; 477 farmers have been trained on bio- dynamic agriculture methods and registered under the Egyptian Biodynamic Associa- tion (EBDA). Today SEKEM is a leading social business worldwide overarching a group of companies and NGOs. The practice is transferable and since 2007, SEKEM has been working to create three new farms, with all infrastructure for sustainable development as in Belbeis. ABOUT THE PRACTICE AT A GLANCE Organisation: SEKEM Group (Company) Implemented in: Belbeis, Sharkeya (Egypt) Year: 1977 Beneficiaries: EKEM employees, small farmers working under the supervision of SEKEM, people living in surrounding villages benefiting from SEKEM schools, medical center, and vocational training center Topic(s): Production, processing, distribution, consumption, organic PROBLEMS TARGETED / CONTEXT The SEKEM Initiative was founded to realize the vision of sustainable human develop- ment and to tackle poverty, unemployment, food security, water and energy challen- ges, and gender inequality in Egypt. In Egypt agriculture involves 40% of the workforce and remains the least developed sector of the Egyptian economy. Cost of agricultural convened by EGYPT: SEKEM Initiative (1977) production has increased while the resource base has shrunk. Today, Egypt has become one of the world’s largest importers of food. Farmers in Egypt face a plethora of prob- lems, such as water-scarcity, over-reliance on chemical inputs and low productivity.
    [Show full text]
  • Gene Flow in the Environment – Genetic Pollution? G.R
    Gene flow in the environment Gene flow in the environment – genetic pollution? G.R. Squire, N. Augustin, J. Bown1, J.W. Crawford, G. Dunlop, J. Graham, J.R. Hillman, B. Marshall, D. Marshall, G. Ramsay, D.J. Robinson, J. Russell, C. Thompson & G. Wright iological invasions have had profound effects on affect plants and animals, injure us? Will crops in gen- Bhuman society from the earliest times. The spread eral, and GM ones in particular, reduce even more the of the black death in the Middle Ages, the devasta- biological diversity of arable farmland? Will they con- tions of potato blight, the effects on indigenous taminate other crops, cause more pesticide to be used, species by grey squirrels, dutch elm disease and flat- rather than less as some companies claim? worms have all been seen as detrimental to man or the environment. Others are seen as bringing benefits: An increasing number of people have a stake in the most of our crops evolved elsewhere in the world and debate - pressure groups, farmers, farm advisers, con- many culinary and medicinal herbs were brought to sumers, agrochemical companies and government. Britain by the Romans. Perhaps the greatest invasion Opinions are too often polarised. In this confronta- is the import of vast numbers of exotic plants to gar- tional atmosphere, the need is for clear, independent dens and greenhouses. Ecological invasions are an fact, answers and comment. A part of the debate is intrinsic part of ecology and evolution and we only ethical, but independent research is essential on ques- consider them bad if they impoverish our health, tions that science can legitimately address.
    [Show full text]
  • Potocnik Sept Final
    To: Janez Potočnik EU Commissioner for the Environment Cc: Laszlo Tokes vice-president of the European Parliament Cc: Jo Leinen Chair of the EP Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Cc: János Áder, Richard Seeber, Theodoros Skylakakis, Zuzana Roithova, Alajos Mészáros, Daciana Sarbu, Kriton Arsenis, Csaba Tabajdi, Renate Weber, Michail Tremopoulos, Edvard Kožunšnik, Kartika Tamara Liotard, Sabine Wils, Joao Ferreira, Jiri Mastalka and Nikolaos Chountis Members of the European Parliament 08 September 2010 OPEN LETTER Dear Commissioner Potočnik, We are writing to you in relation to the European Parliament (EP) resolution of May 5th (P7_TA (2010)0145) calling for a general ban on the use of cyanide mining technologies in the European Union by 2011. We remind you that the EP resolution was passed with an overwhelming majority of 488 votes. The Parliament’s unequivocal call for a ban on cyanide mining is due to the concern of our elected representatives to protect Europe's shared water resources, its biodiversity, and the health and livelihoods of its citizens. Our hope is that as Commissioner for the Environment you might share these concerns. However your communications to members of the European Parliamenti and to environmental groupsii, fail to justify your refusal to take action in line with the EP resolution, and to assess the gaps in the implementation of existing legislation. We are also seriously concerned about the non-transparent process of consultations that the European Commission undertook with representatives of the mining industryiii, while the request for participation of environmental groups and local communities were ignored. We remind you that the European Commission is both legally and morally obliged to protect the public interest and to promote transparency, democracy and citizens’ participation in decision-making.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation
    March 2021 CGRFA/WG-AqGR-3/21/Inf.15 E COMMISSION ON GENETIC RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE Item 8 of the Provisional Agenda INTERGOVERNMENTAL TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP ON AQUATIC GENETIC RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE Third Session 1 - 3 June 2021 THE ROLE OF GENETIC RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE IN CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraphs I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 – 2 II. SCOPING STUDY ON THE ROLE OF GENETIC RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE IN ADAPTATION TO AND MITIGATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE ....................................................................................................................... 3 Appendix: Scoping study on the role of genetic resources for food and agriculture in adaptation to and mitigation of climate change NF847 2 CGRFA/WG-AqGR-3/21/Inf.15 I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (Commission), at its last session, requested FAO to prepare a scoping study on the role of genetic resources for food and agriculture (GRFA) in adaptation to and mitigation of climate change, including knowledge gaps, taking into account the forthcoming special reports on terrestrial and marine systems by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other available relevant sources, including examples from different regions and subsectors.1 2. The Commission further requested its Intergovernmental Technical Working Groups to review the study. II. SCOPING STUDY ON THE ROLE OF GENETIC RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE IN ADAPTATION TO AND MITIGATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE 3. The draft text of the scoping study on the role of genetic resources for food and agriculture in adaptation to and mitigation of climate change is presented in Appendix to this document.
    [Show full text]
  • Bees, Beekeepers, and Bureaucrats: Parasitism and the Politics of Transgenic Life
    EnvironmentandPlanningD:SocietyandSpaceadvance online publication doi:10.1068/d0510 Bees, beekeepers, and bureaucrats: parasitism and the politics of transgenic life Javier Lezaun Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford, Park End Street, Oxford OX1 1HP, England; e-mail: [email protected] Received 5 January 2010; in revised form 26 September 2010; published online 3 June 2011 Abstract. Over the last decade the flying patterns and foraging behavior of bees have become a matter of public policy in the European Union. Determined to establish a system where transgenic crops can `coexist' with conventional and organic farming, the EU has begun to erect a system of demarcations and separations designed to minimize the extent of `gene flow' from genetically modified plants. As the European landscape is regimented through the introduction of isolation distances and buffer zones, bees and other pollinating insects have become vectors of `genetic pollution', disrupting the project of cohabitation and purification devised by European authorities. Drawing on the work of Michel Serres on parasitism, this paper traces the emergence of bees as an object of regulatory scrutiny and as an interruptor of the `coexistence' project. Along with bees, however, another uninvited guest arrived unexpectedly on the scene: the beekeeper, who came to see his traditional relationship to bees, crops, and consumers at risk. The figure of the parasite connects the two essential dynamics described in this paper: an escalation of research and the intensification of political attributes. ``The founding of the naked, empty field, virgin once more, is the oldest work of the human world.'' Michel Serres (2007 The Parasite) At the turn of this century bees became a preoccupation of European bureaucrats.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cartagena Protocol and Biological Diversity; Biosafe Or Bio- Sorry
    Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons Faculty Publications 2000 The Cartagena Protocol and Biological Diversity; Biosafe or Bio- sorry Jonathan H. Adler Case Western University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Natural Resources Law Commons Repository Citation Adler, Jonathan H., "The Cartagena Protocol and Biological Diversity; Biosafe or Bio-sorry" (2000). Faculty Publications. 190. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications/190 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. The Cartagena Protocol and Biological Diversity: Biosafe or Bio�Sorry? . JONATHAN H. ADLER* CONTENTS I. Introduction . 761 IT. TheThreat to Biodiversity. 764 ill. TheCartagena Protocol on Biosafety. 768 IV. Biosafety Versus Biodiversity. 772 V. Conclusion . 777 I. INTRODUCTION In February 1999, delegates from some 170 nations were summoned to Cartagena, Columbia to finalize an international protocol on the regulation of biotechnology. Under the auspices of the United Nations Convention on Biologi­ cal Diversity (CBD),1 national representatives and members of non-governmen­ tal organizations met to hammer out the details of a new regulatory regime for genetically modified organisms. "We need a widely accepted protocol that protects the environment, strengthens the capacity of developing countries to ensure biosafety, complements existing national regulations, and promotes public confidence in biotechnology and the benefits it can offer," proclaimed Klaus 2 Toepfer, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme.
    [Show full text]
  • A Call to Protect Food Systems from Genetic Extinction Technology: the Global Food and Agriculture Movement Says NO to Release of Gene Drives
    A Call to Protect Food Systems from Genetic Extinction Technology: The Global Food and Agriculture Movement Says NO to Release of Gene Drives Gene drives are new tools that force genetically engineered traits through entire populations of insects, plants, animals and other organisms. This invasive technology represents a deliberate attempt to create a new form of genetic pollution. Gene Drives may drive species to extinction and undermine sustainable and equitable food and agriculture. Gene drives threaten natural systems. If released experimentally into the environment they may spread engineered genes uncontrollably through wild and domesticated species. This could alter ecological systems and food webs, harm biodiversity and eradicate beneficial organisms such as pollinators. Gene drives could disrupt lands, waters, food and fiber economies and harm Indigenous and peasant agroecological practices and cultures. Gene drives are being developed for use in agriculture. If applied, they may make farms even more genetically uniform and foreclose farmers’ rights, as enshrined, among others, in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and other People Working in Rural Areas. Use of gene drives may further entrench a system of genetically-engineered industrial agriculture, extend agro-toxin use and concentrate corporate control over global food systems, undermining the food sovereignty of farmers, food workers and consumers. Gene drives hinder the realization of human rights including rights to healthy, ecologically-produced and culturally appropriate food and nutrition. We, the undersigned, call for a global moratorium on any release of engineered gene drives. This moratorium is necessary to affirm the precautionary principle, which is enshrined in international law, and to protect life on Earth as well as our food supply.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Participants
    World Future Forum/10th Annual General Meeting 2017 10 Years World Future Council: Best Policies for Future Generations 30 March ––– 2 April 2017, Bregenz, Austria List of Participants Member TitleTitleTitle Name First Name Position, Company / Organisation Founder, Kudirat Initiative for Democracy Abiola- (KIND); Founder, China Africa Bridge; Special Councillor Dr. h.c. Hafsat Costello Adviser on MDGs to the Governor of the Ogun State, Nigeria Under Secretary General of the UN; Executive Secretary, United Nations Convention to Councillor Barbut Monique Combat Desertification (UNCCD), France/Germany Chair, Council of Canadians; former Senior Councillor Dr. h.c. Barlow Maude Advisor to the UN on water issues; recipient of the Right Livelihood Award Chair, Bright Green Energy Foundation; Dipal Councillor Barua Co-Founder, Grameen Bank; recipient of the Chandra Right Livelihood Award Research Professor of the Institute of Physics, lecturer at the Faculty of Sciences and Chair, Councillor Prof. Dr. Cetto Ana María Museum of Light at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; Mexico Founder and Chair, African Disability Forum; Councillor Chalklen Shuaib former UN Special Rapporteur on Disability, South Africa Director, Africapractice; Research Fellow of the University of Cape Town, the Earth Institute at Councillor Dr. Colman Tony Columbia University and the University of East Anglia, UK Founder, Oxford Research Group; Founder, Councillor Dr. Elworthy Scilla Peace Direct; Co-Founder, Rising Women Rising World, UK President, Hungarian Environmental Councillor Dr. Fülöp Sándor Management and Law Association (EMLA), Hungary Professor of Psychiatry; Founder of the Councillor Prof. Dr. Ghubash Rafia Women's Museum at Bait Al Banat, UAE Chair, Centre for Development Alternatives; Councillor Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology: Biodiversity and Natural Resources Part 1
    CK-12 FOUNDATION Ecology: Biodiversity and Natural Resources Part 1 Akre CK-12 Foundation is a non-profit organization with a mission to reduce the cost of textbook materials for the K-12 market both in the U.S. and worldwide. Using an open-content, web-based collaborative model termed the “FlexBook,” CK-12 intends to pioneer the generation and distribution of high-quality educational content that will serve both as core text as well as provide an adaptive environment for learning. Copyright © 2010 CK-12 Foundation, www.ck12.org Except as otherwise noted, all CK-12 Content (including CK-12 Curriculum Material) is made available to Users in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution/Non-Commercial/Share Alike 3.0 Un- ported (CC-by-NC-SA) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/), as amended and updated by Creative Commons from time to time (the “CC License”), which is incorporated herein by this reference. Specific details can be found at http://about.ck12.org/terms. Printed: October 11, 2010 Author Barbara Akre Contributor Jean Battinieri i www.ck12.org Contents 1 Ecology: Biodiversity and Natural Resources Part 1 1 1.1 Lesson 18.1: The Biodiversity Crisis ............................... 1 1.2 Lesson 18.2: Natural Resources .................................. 32 2 Ecology: Biodiversity and Natural Resources Part I 49 2.1 Chapter 18: Ecology and Human Actions ............................ 49 2.2 Lesson 18.1: The Biodiversity Crisis ............................... 49 2.3 Lesson 18.2: Natural Resources .................................. 53 www.ck12.org ii Chapter 1 Ecology: Biodiversity and Natural Resources Part 1 1.1 Lesson 18.1: The Biodiversity Crisis Lesson Objectives • Compare humans to other species in terms of resource needs and use, and ecosystem service benefits and effects.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Introduced Tilapias on Native Biodiversity
    AQUATIC CONSERVATION: MARINE AND FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 15: 463–483 (2005) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/aqc.699 The effects of introduced tilapias on native biodiversity GABRIELLE C. CANONICOa,*, ANGELA ARTHINGTONb, JEFFREY K. MCCRARYc,d and MICHELE L. THIEMEe a Sustainable Development and Conservation Biology Program, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA b Centre for Riverine Landscapes, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Griffith University, Australia c University of Central America, Managua, Nicaragua d Conservation Management Institute, College of Natural Resources, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA e Conservation Science Program, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC, USA ABSTRACT 1. The common name ‘tilapia’ refers to a group of tropical freshwater fish in the family Cichlidae (Oreochromis, Tilapia, and Sarotherodon spp.) that are indigenous to Africa and the southwestern Middle East. Since the 1930s, tilapias have been intentionally dispersed worldwide for the biological control of aquatic weeds and insects, as baitfish for certain capture fisheries, for aquaria, and as a food fish. They have most recently been promoted as an important source of protein that could provide food security for developing countries without the environmental problems associated with terrestrial agriculture. In addition, market demand for tilapia in developed countries such as the United States is growing rapidly. 2. Tilapias are well-suited to aquaculture because they are highly prolific and tolerant to a range of environmental conditions. They have come to be known as the ‘aquatic chicken’ because of their potential as an affordable, high-yield source of protein that can be easily raised in a range of environments } from subsistence or ‘backyard’ units to intensive fish hatcheries.
    [Show full text]
  • Hands Off Mother Earth!
    HANDS OFF MOTHER EARTH! MANIfesto AGAInst GEOENGIneerING OCtoBER 2018 Hands Off Mother Earth! e, civil society organizations, popular movements, Indigenous W Peoples, peasant organizations, academics, intellectuals, writers, workers, artists and other concerned citizens from around the world, oppose geoengineering as a dangerous, unnecessary and unjust proposal to tackle climate change. Geoengineering refers to large-scale technological interventions in the Earth’s oceans, soils and atmosphere with the aim of weakening some of the symptoms of climate change. Geoengineering perpetuates the false belief that today’s unjust, ecologically- and socially-devastating industrial model of production and consumption cannot be changed and that we therefore need techno-fixes to tame its effects. However, the shifts and transformations we really need to face the climate crisis are fundamentally economic, political, social and cultural. Geoengineering says consumption cannot be changed and that we therefore need techno-fixes to tame its effects, but real solutions are economic, political and cultural. Mother Earth is our common home and its integrity must not be violated by geoengineering experimentation and deployment. We are committed to protecting Mother Earth and defending our rights, territories and peoples against anyone attempting to take control of the global thermostat or the vital natural cycles of planetary functions and ecosystems. 2 3 Healthy ecosystems and cultural and biological diversity are crucial to the well-being of all people, societies and economies. Geoengineering, whether on land, in the oceans or in the atmosphere, puts ecosystems, biodiversity and human communities at risk of potentially devastating impacts and side effects. We reject any further entrenchment of fossil fuel economies.
    [Show full text]