Recently, I read a tweet that by LIFE, an organization that works on environmental law. “The ‘least’ IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) can do for wildlife is not to categorise species as ‘least concern’,” it read.
LIFE (Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment) referred to EIA (Environmental impact assessment) consultants using this to justify destruction of wildlife and its habitat. But I was thinking, the way India is getting hit by climate change, which species can still be of least concern, except, maybe the Blue Rock Pigeons in our cities and some kinds of disease carrying mosquitoes?
Climate change destroys much more than habitats. When the monsoon is delayed, it interferes with the life cycle of several species. The prolonged extreme heat can kill species. No matter how well adapted any creature is to extremes, there is a limit to resilience.
Dr. Reuven Yusuf, from Israel, said, “As temperatures rise, birds in the Himalayan ecosystem will shift to higher altitudes. But birds at the highest altitudes could go extinct. How many least concern species would this include?”
LIFE’s point about species of least concern and scrapping this category is valid, because it gives us a false sense of security. It is also predicated on the fallacy that all wild flora and fauna is known to humans and classified. This is not the case.
{{/usCountry}}LIFE’s point about species of least concern and scrapping this category is valid, because it gives us a false sense of security. It is also predicated on the fallacy that all wild flora and fauna is known to humans and classified. This is not the case.
{{/usCountry}}Equally, we should focus on landscapes, because these are the armours we have against climate change. Wetlands may reduce the impact of flooding, old, rich forests could moderate temperature rise.
As we enter the era of environmental catastrophe, how we value species deserves a rethink.
(The author is founder and director, Chintan Environmental Research and Action Group)