Restoring eco-balance

标签:
杂谈 |
分类: 环保呐喊 |
July 06, 2012
A 1970s botanist and his theory of ecological balance are all but forgotten in China. But the country needs them today more than ever, writes Jiang Gaoming.
“An overreliance on human interference has led to excessive use of chemical feeds, fertiliser, pesticides, plastic membranes, herbicides, additives and GM technology, gravely upsetting the ecological balance of our farms.”
“We will only succeed if we
are equal”
June 15, 2012
Our bounded world
June 15, 2012
We’re all farmers
now
May 29, 2012
In the late 1970s,
China was swept by a wave of economic growth, and with it a
wholesale attack on nature. Grain was planted on grasslands and
profits extracted from rivers. Land was reclaimed from lakes and
seas and forests were felled for arable land.
Seeing those drastic and potentially disastrous steps, an ecologist
named Hou Xueyu spoke out. Humanity needed to respect nature’s
rules, he said, and safeguard its ecological balance.
Today, Hou Xueyu, who was a member of the Academic Divisions of the Chinese Academy of
Sciences and researcher at
the academy’s Institute of Botany, is all but forgotten. But his
theory of ecological balance remains as relevant as ever. It still
has a role to play in guiding social and economic
development.
Put simply, ecological balance is a state of adaptation, harmony
and unity between organisms and their environment. When an
ecosystem is in balance, different parts of the system maintain
certain ratios to each other and can maintain that balance even in
the face of external interference. But if balance is lost, the
system will head towards collapse.
To allay worries that maintaining “balance” meant halting
development, Hou used a vivid metaphor: ecological balance is like
riding a bike, he said. A bike must be in motion to be stable; if
it’s not moving, you fall off. If one component fails – if the
handlebars fall off, the brakes fail or the tire springs a leak –
the balance is lost and the rider won’t move forward.
Three decades on, nobody talks of ecological balance. Instead, the
buzzwords are “ecological construction” or “ecological
development”. “Pollute and destroy first, clean up and develop
later.” “Better to die of pollution than poverty.” These are the
mottos by which China’s officials live. Development trumps all,
nothing is more important than GDP, and Hou’s warnings – indeed Hou
himself – have vanished into history.
Virtually all of China’s ecosystems – both natural and artificial –
are in various states of crisis. Grasslands are degraded by
overgrazing and mining. Efforts to exterminate locusts on the
grasslands have killed off birds, beneficial insects and other
predators of locusts. The natural wetlands of the rural north have
been drained and vast swaths of surface water turned filthy.
Polluted coastal wetlands have been struck by red tides and natural woodlands swallowed up by
development, while village trees are uprooted, trussed up and
carted off to the cities for “urban greening” projects. Invasive
species create constant crisis, and are found even in nature
reserves.
And look at our agricultural ecosystems. An overreliance on human
interference has led to excessive use of chemical feeds,
fertiliser, pesticides, plastic membranes, herbicides, additives
and GM technology, gravely upsetting the ecological balance of our
farms. Fertiliser use has increased 100-fold since the early 1950s,
and has long focused on providing nitrogen, phosphorus and
potassium – not on returning organic material to the soil. The
carbon-nitrogen ratio is badly out of balance, resulting in
hardpan
soil, acidification, and
less fertile land than ever before.
Overreliance on pesticides has killed off the natural predators of
pests, while the pests themselves continue to develop new
resistance, driving use of ever more toxic chemicals. Herbicides
temporarily controls weeds, but the weeds return the next year, and
so does the herbicide – in greater quantities. Plastic agricultural
membranes are everywhere; fields are full of this “white
terror”.
The old days of
Chinese villages blessed with clean air, water and fresh food are
gone. Pests and weeds are growing in number, while extended
exposure to chemicals is causing illness – particularly cancer –
among villagers. The levels of pesticides, herbicides and growth
hormones in food are rising and affecting the health of urban
consumers. These are the harsh lessons seen when human arrogance
disrupts the ecological balance.
More worryingly, humans are failing to look for the root of the
problem. When we see more pests and weeds, we just step up the
fight. The pest-killing Bt gene
is transferred into crops, turning
plant cells into “pesticide factories”, while complementary
pesticides are used in a pincer attack. The more highly toxic
glyphosate weed killers are used in tandem with crops genetically
engineered to resist the chemical, while everything else green dies
off. But the dangers of glyphosate when it enters the environment,
our food and our bodies, have not been explained.
GM technology adds insult to the injury of an already unbalanced
ecosystem. After a decade of genetically modified crop cultivation,
US fields are now plagued by “superweeds” and “superpests”. America is the largest planter of such crops,
and the water and air of its agricultural areas are already widely
polluted with genetically modified material. And American farmers
are afflicted by higher planting and pesticide costs. Early this
year, 300,000 organic farmers took GM giant Monsanto
to federal court, claiming
the company was infringing their rights to plant traditional crops
and damaging the agricultural foundations of their industry.
The problems are not going unrecognised. Last year, the UN’s Food
and Agriculture Organisation issued a call
for agriculture to return to nature.
With Save and Grow, a publication of the FAO’s plant
production and protection division, the organisation launched an
initiative “to produce food for a growing world population in an
environmentally sustainable way.”
“The present paradigm of intensive crop production cannot meet the
challenges of the new millennium. In order to grow, agriculture
must learn to save,” the FAO said. “The Save and Grow model incorporates an ecosystem approach that
draws on nature's contribution to crop growth – soil organic
matter, water flow regulation, pollination and natural predation of
pests.”
UN expert Oliver de Schutter has gone so far as to say that
small-scale farmers could double food production in 10 years in
critical regions by adopting eco-farming methods – plenty to meet
the additional needs created through population growth.
Meanwhile, Europe has remained wary of the GM project: in January,
German chemical company BASF announced plans to stop producing
genetically modified crops for the European market and move its
plant-science headquarters to the United States due to “lack of
acceptance for this technology in many parts of Europe from the
majority of consumers, farmers and politicians.”
And, in both Europe and America, public and private efforts are
bolstering eco-agriculture and trade, a trend neatly symbolised by
Michelle Obama, America’s first lady, when she planted organic
vegetables in the White House garden.
Unfortunately, however, what the developed nations increasingly see
as trash technology is now moving to the developing world, and in
particular to China.
If humanity wants to survive, it must better manage its
relationship with nature. We must recognise that the productive
forces of science and technology can also destroy. If we do not
protect ecosystems, human society is doomed. We must learn from the
fall of Mayan civilisation and from the failings of the old
development model. And we must listen to Hou Xueyu; it’s time to
get back on our bikes and restore ecological
balance.
Jiang Gaoming is chief researcher at
the Chinese Academy of Science’s Institute of Botany and deputy
secretary of the Ecological Society of China.
Homepage image
by