Questionable Findings from the Michigan State University Study on Food and Biodiversity
A Michigan State University study with the title "International food trade benefits biodiversity and food security in low-income countries” shows how even the most titled of experts have a skewed view on sustainability .
An introduction to the study as published in Nature stated that:
“By examining datasets comprising 189 food items across 157 countries during 2000–2018, we found that high-income countries exported more food to low-income countries than they imported. Many low-income countries, especially those with biodiversity hotspots, increasingly acted as net importers, suggesting that imports from high-income countries can benefit biodiversity in low-income countries. Because low-income countries without hotspots have rapidly raised their amounts of food exports to hotspot countries, such exports might help further reduce negative impacts on biodiversity.”
An introduction to the study as published in Nature stated that:
“By examining datasets comprising 189 food items across 157 countries during 2000–2018, we found that high-income countries exported more food to low-income countries than they imported. Many low-income countries, especially those with biodiversity hotspots, increasingly acted as net importers, suggesting that imports from high-income countries can benefit biodiversity in low-income countries. Because low-income countries without hotspots have rapidly raised their amounts of food exports to hotspot countries, such exports might help further reduce negative impacts on biodiversity.”
Screenshot from Survival International campaign against the biggest land grab in history
The findings were promoted as a dynamic study that “flies in the face of conventional wisdoms: that high-income countries harm biodiversity in low-income countries by importing food from them, and yet low-income countries, particularly those with biodiversity hotspots, were increasingly becoming net importers themselves.
Some low-income countries that don't have biodiversity hotspots such as Ukraine have rapidly increased exporting food to hotspot countries. Those exports might help further reduce negative impacts on biodiversity.”
The study findings are problematic as it suggests low biodiversity hotspot countries like the Ukraine can help to save high biodiversity countries especially in Africa.
For one, where would African countries find the revenue to import foods? There are myriads of aid agencies that collect funding from rich countries to fight hunger in Africa but charitable donations should be seen as a short term solution as the funding sources cannot be sustainable.
For two, the Ukraine is not a low biodiversity-rich area. The major findings of a USAID report stated that:
Biodiversity in large parts of Ukraine was systematically erased during the Soviet era, largely to make way for agriculture. Steppe and wetland ecosystems (meadows and marshes) were particularly hard hit.
An article written by Roman Malko covers more of the environmental problems in the Ukraine. The bottomline here is that the Ukraine is not a low biodiversity area. It is a high biodiversity area whose destruction due to agriculture must be remediated.
As far as Africa is concerned, the sort of attitude from researchers like those at the MSU show a lack of understanding what needs to happen in high biodiversity regions like Africa. Study authors were quoted in Phys.org as saying:
"Understanding the interrelationships between food security and biodiversity is essential to achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals," said CSIS director Jianguo "Jack" Liu, MSU Rachel Carson Chair in Sustainability and co-author. "Our work seeks to understand how we can achieve global food security to feed a growing population without sacrificing biodiversity in the telecoupled world."
As the Ukraine crisis drags on, hunger in Africa is projected to worsen. The problem is expected to grow as the world’s second largest producer of wheat, India, shuts down its export of wheat.
In trivializing biodiversity in low biodiversity nations as a solution to Sustainable Development Goals, the MSU report can only be seen as a colonialistic where rich nations with biodiversity threatened with extinction are seen as saviors of biodiversity in poor nations. The opinions of the MSU researchers are therefore, far from anything to do with the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals.
Should COP15, United Nations summit to agree to a global deal to arrest declining biodiversity and the destruction of nature ever take place, it should be highlighted that rich nations with their large food subsidies are condemning poor nations to a vicious cycle of dependence.
The Sustainable Fishing Partnership Agreements between the EU and African nations clearly favors European fishers with their modern fleets.
The shocking situation of heavily subsidized European farmers taking away the livelihoods of African farmers must be corrected before any references to global biodiversity is made.
Failure to do so would only amplify the accusations of experts like Dr Mordecai Ogada, author of The Big Conservation Lie who calls the global focus on the conservation of Africa’s wildlife “a pursuit whose power to inspire is only rivalled by it’s ability to blind it’s audience to reality.”
The MSU findings are guilty of being blinded when they sideline the more important issue of one’s ability to feed themselves in favor of conservation.
This had to be called out as non-profit groups like Survival International campaign against what they perceive as the biggest land grab in history for conservation.
While one report from an American university does not mean much in the scientific arena where conflicting opinions among “experts” are commonplace, the assertions made by the MSU report had to be questioned.
Published May 2022. CSPO Watch
Some low-income countries that don't have biodiversity hotspots such as Ukraine have rapidly increased exporting food to hotspot countries. Those exports might help further reduce negative impacts on biodiversity.”
The study findings are problematic as it suggests low biodiversity hotspot countries like the Ukraine can help to save high biodiversity countries especially in Africa.
For one, where would African countries find the revenue to import foods? There are myriads of aid agencies that collect funding from rich countries to fight hunger in Africa but charitable donations should be seen as a short term solution as the funding sources cannot be sustainable.
For two, the Ukraine is not a low biodiversity-rich area. The major findings of a USAID report stated that:
Biodiversity in large parts of Ukraine was systematically erased during the Soviet era, largely to make way for agriculture. Steppe and wetland ecosystems (meadows and marshes) were particularly hard hit.
An article written by Roman Malko covers more of the environmental problems in the Ukraine. The bottomline here is that the Ukraine is not a low biodiversity area. It is a high biodiversity area whose destruction due to agriculture must be remediated.
As far as Africa is concerned, the sort of attitude from researchers like those at the MSU show a lack of understanding what needs to happen in high biodiversity regions like Africa. Study authors were quoted in Phys.org as saying:
"Understanding the interrelationships between food security and biodiversity is essential to achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals," said CSIS director Jianguo "Jack" Liu, MSU Rachel Carson Chair in Sustainability and co-author. "Our work seeks to understand how we can achieve global food security to feed a growing population without sacrificing biodiversity in the telecoupled world."
As the Ukraine crisis drags on, hunger in Africa is projected to worsen. The problem is expected to grow as the world’s second largest producer of wheat, India, shuts down its export of wheat.
In trivializing biodiversity in low biodiversity nations as a solution to Sustainable Development Goals, the MSU report can only be seen as a colonialistic where rich nations with biodiversity threatened with extinction are seen as saviors of biodiversity in poor nations. The opinions of the MSU researchers are therefore, far from anything to do with the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals.
Should COP15, United Nations summit to agree to a global deal to arrest declining biodiversity and the destruction of nature ever take place, it should be highlighted that rich nations with their large food subsidies are condemning poor nations to a vicious cycle of dependence.
The Sustainable Fishing Partnership Agreements between the EU and African nations clearly favors European fishers with their modern fleets.
The shocking situation of heavily subsidized European farmers taking away the livelihoods of African farmers must be corrected before any references to global biodiversity is made.
Failure to do so would only amplify the accusations of experts like Dr Mordecai Ogada, author of The Big Conservation Lie who calls the global focus on the conservation of Africa’s wildlife “a pursuit whose power to inspire is only rivalled by it’s ability to blind it’s audience to reality.”
The MSU findings are guilty of being blinded when they sideline the more important issue of one’s ability to feed themselves in favor of conservation.
This had to be called out as non-profit groups like Survival International campaign against what they perceive as the biggest land grab in history for conservation.
While one report from an American university does not mean much in the scientific arena where conflicting opinions among “experts” are commonplace, the assertions made by the MSU report had to be questioned.
Published May 2022. CSPO Watch