#9 Biodiversity and Trade

Mounds of burning ivory symbolically representing that ivory has no value if its removed from the animal. Source

The biggest killer of threatened and near-threatened species is the excess.

 

Source: Maxwell et al. (2016)

Excessive logging, hunting, fishing...

Human consumption is the common denominator in most, if not all, of the above statistics. What has always seemed strange to me though is that when I think about the issue of logging, I am quick to denounce the Brazilian government for its role in the matter, Taiwan for their excessive tuna fishing, or Kenya for its role in the ivory trade. But an excessive supply stems from excessive demand somewhere. Indeed, each of these articles I linked discuss the demand side of an unsustainable supply – and only very recently are academics taking notice of the importance of doing so. This has led to momentous findings, such as that 23% of the global wildlife footprint is traded internationally, 30% of IUCN Red List species threats stem from international trade, and 17% of potential species loss is down to trade in agriculture.

We’ve seen the power of using ‘flows’ to track consumption and water use; I’d like to see whether the same could be done for biodiversity.

The first study to turn to is from Lenzen et al. (2012), who were somewhat pioneers in the global footprint analysis for biodiversity. They linked 25,000 Animalia species from the red list to over 15,000 commodities across 187 countries and then analysed some 5 billion supply chains to understand their impacts on biodiversity. I’m impressed.

Source: Lenzen et al. (2012) 

Germany’s consumption, for example, threatens 569 species domestically and 611 species abroad. This map is an important first step in understanding how consumption in one country has global impacts. It also opens up the conversation of producer and consumer responsibility.

While a brave step into new academic terrain, I find several faults with their analysis. It makes little sense to talk about species threats at a country level: saying ‘Singapore threatens 70 species in Malaysia’ will not lead to very targeted policy making. Brook et al (2013), for example, suggest that if we want to look at overall biosphere health, it is better to consider the “contribution of many component ecosystems operating on local and regional scales”. Similarly, I worry that the true impact on biodiversity may be understated due to their narrow focus on globally threatened species and disregard of regionally threatened species. In a study of the phylogenetic identity of European plant species by Winter et al (2009), it was discovered that at a regional level, European flora have partly lost and are projected to continue to lose their uniqueness.  

Their study also brings some insight into the question: doesn’t globalization and trade increase biodiversity through alien species addition? It turns out that while plant invasion does indeed exceed extinction, hereby increasing species richness, as stated before they found decreased regional phylogenetic diversity and increased taxonomic similarity in European regions. Perhaps we have some thinking to do about the possibility of phylogenetic diversity replacing the current planetary boundary measure for biodiversity?

In any case, lets get regional.

The map below indicates global hotspots of species threats associated with US consumption. Good news! You’ll also notice marine species getting some much-needed attention.

Source: Moran and Kanemoto (2017) Watch the video in the previous post to see how the map was made!

I was rather surprised by the US footprint in Spain and Portugal, which was high due to threats to fish and bird species, which I previously associated more with the Eastern Pacific and Eastern Europe respectively. Although I suppose having read Venter et al (2016) should have alerted me to this.

What’s this map trying to show?

Let me put it this way: approximately 90% of the US $6 billion/yr allocated to conservation efforts globally is directed into conservation in economically rich countries. But that’s not really where the hotspots associated with consumption lie. This map, and more generally the effort to make consumption spatially explicit, might just be the key to stimulate direct collaboration between specific producers and consumers, in order to mitigate the effects of our overconsumption and production on biodiversity and the environment. 

Some more of their maps:

China

Europe