9 billion about 35 billion Citigroup and non5Even a mundane plant pot can become a GMOIt would not set limits to Saddam HusseinThe unions are for the time being hostileJust as a one man cannot replace an orchestra3 billion has some similarities with EurotunnelThe acquisition of Tele2 France by SFR was confirmed yesterdayYou have closed your year end tax of AprilAvéo is a network of 27 concessions created in 2008The Mayor and Pascal Viné Bruno no longer exitWhy speak of "biodiversity" and of nature, is this a new semantic snobbery
Originally, in 1986, the word "biodiversity" is a find of editor who just need to shorten the term "biological diversity". But the word is new ideas. First, he said that diversity is constitutive of the world of the living. Then, he was born at the time where new discoveries have changed the perception of this diversity. While thought to have made an inventory of 80 of the species on Earth, it realized that it knew no doubt barely 10. What have shown, for example the famous adventure of the raft of Crowns, which allowed to collect at the top of the trees of the tropical forests of countless unknown insects, or dives in deep water, with the discovery of a new life, where it was thought the impossible, or light. Moreover, aware that all the described species were a minority from the world of unicellular microorganisms, holding 90 of the two features of the living, the nitrogen and phos-Ionophore was taken. One can speak of a "dark matter" of biodiversity, that is just beginning to explore through genomics.
Is it really on the verge of a sixth species extinction
During the two centuries, the rate of species loss is thousand times greater than the natural renewal. Although be wary of this kind of figures, there is a consensus to admit that the rate of loss is greater than that of appearances and that Furthermore it accelerates. At the current rate, it will have lost 30 to 40 of our biodiversity at the end of the century. All indicators are in red. Most scientists, which I am part, subscribes to this idea that we are on the verge of a sixth species extinction. I have not the expression of a trend to catastrophism but the simple result of the fragmentation of habitats, unfortunately linked to human activity.
The France is committed to halt the degradation of its biodiversity, is it received
Hard to say, since this commitment was made without build enough indicators. If we take the curve on the abundance of common birds, it shows a decrease of 30 in 20 years in agricultural settings. Today, it seems that we reach a level and a certain stabilization. Indicators, there is also the famous red list of species endangered by the International Union for conservation of nature (IUCN), which shows that a species of mammals in ten is threatened in metropolitan France. Finally, the black points, include fishing, since we know now that it has reached the limits of several fish stocks.
Is more the creation of protected areas sufficient
Non. Before, it was hoped that by protecting for example 20 of the surface of the planet, covering 80 of the biodiversity. Today, we know that 20 of protected areas, it is only 20 of protected biodiversity. And yet, since in relation to global change, as climate change, there is more places safe. Take for example the rain nitrogen content. In Paris on the Vanoise national park, rainwater lay 30 kilos of nitrates per hectare and per year, compared to an average 200 kg nitrogen intake for a cultivated wheat field. Which inevitably has consequences for ecosystems, for example on the speed of trees or the appearance of invasive species. This decreases the relevance of this approach "Castle". Now, we must also focus on the ordinary nature, which joined the question of its economic recovery.
Work began to encrypt services rendered by nature. What are the first teachings
An article published in 1997 in the scientific journal "Nature" under the leadership of various economists assessed the services rendered by nature were equal to two times the global GDP. This means that all the wealth of the world would not suffice to pay. And then, under the leadership of the United Nations, the "Millennium Ecosystem Assessment" has highlighted that 60 of backgrounds studied functions were degraded. It especially showed the paradox of the development of ecosystems. For example, the culture of shrimp in mangrove areas certainly brings export revenues, but decreases the value of the services rendered by these mangrove forests, which are nurseries for fish and at the same time protect the coast against tsunamis. As it purports to develop a medium, thus must be finely assessed impacts.
Can be "monétariser" nature Is there a unit of measure as is per ton of carbon in the fight against climate change
That argues for a "monetization" of nature, it is that, for the moment, all its functions are zero. When it decides to large public investment, as a TGV line, economists assess all kinds of data: the time earned, the number of lives saved, the impact on noise, the production of carbon dioxide (CO2), etc. So is there a schedule for a human life saved, which should however not have price, while the impacts on biodiversity, or reference value, are never integrated into the economic calculations. Yet, a monetization does not require entering law and Exchange logic to destroy: I destroy, so I pay. It should only be used to a priori estimates of investment. Indeed, internationally, it will never find biodiversity a currency exchange, a (unit biodiversity) UB, equivalent per tonne of CO2. We know that the pressure of human climate through its CO2 emissions, but to measure the pressure of human biodiversity, the causes are multiple: agriculture, urbanization, pollution...
In your report, you managed to evaluate the French nature
Yes, leaving aside notable settings or rare species whose value is also difficult to assess than a historical monument. On the other hand, we can encrypt per hectare of ordinary nature, forests or grasslands, in evaluating the services provided by these ecosystems to society. Thus, for forests, we manage an average value of 970 euros per hectare and year, adding to the production of wood (approximately 100 euros per hectare) the function of gathering, the value of hunting, recreational value, the contribution of the forest to the water quality and its function to store and use the carbon. This shows a minimum price that shows already that one hectare of forest is ten times more than we can imagine on the basis of the single market value of produced wood. A similar study number to 600 euros per hectare and year the reference value for the prairies.
What do you expect from this assessment
Both little and a lot of things. This can change the vision of the development in arbitrations on the use of land. Today, cultivated land worth more than the prairies, which are worth more than the forest. But, if it integrates the services rendered, this hierarchy can be reversed. So this legitimate evolution of public aid, including in the reform of the common agricultural policy, for the conservation of grasslands. However, in the process of urbanization, the value that we suggest is insufficient to fundamentally stop the passage of non-construction land for construction. Finally, our calculations may have an influence on the choice for infrastructure, particularly in terms of plot. He may thus appear sensible to add minutes to a TGV line to save long term ecological services.
In the future, to protect the environment, what is your most cherished dream
My dearest wish is to see the agricultural world in its diversity decide to be one of the major actors of the development of this ecological capital. Instead of saying that he would not become "the gardener of nature". This happens, I am sure, with the common agricultural policy, whose objective must be to protect European agriculture, but also to maintain and even increase our ecological capital for future generations.
