Nature conservation and biodiversity are reciprocal to each other. Conservation always leads to restoration or enhancement of biodiversity. Therefore, first a baseline information about the climatic , edaphic factors including the substrate type etc. should be collected to promote specific type of plants i.e., the producers of the ecosystem. Supporting the right type of vegetation will result in speedy development and conservation of ecosystem. The animals requiring specific set of conditions and resources may be promoted, however, introduction of any non native species may be avoided which may lead to disastrous consequences for native biodiversity. The system should be free from anthropogenic disturbances and should rely on eco-friendly ways of energy usage.

The first best step is identify the various factors affecting nature conservation, biological ecosystems, and flora and fauna biodiversity. After the factors have been identified, we need to critically learn how they affect those components of nature conservation. I believe that is the best approach we can use.

Nature conservation and biodiversity are reciprocal to each other. Conservation always leads to restoration or enhancement of biodiversity. Therefore, first a baseline information about the climatic , edaphic factors including the substrate type etc. should be collected to promote specific type of plants i.e., the producers of the ecosystem. Supporting the right type of vegetation will result in speedy development and conservation of ecosystem. The animals requiring specific set of conditions and resources may be promoted, however, introduction of any non native species may be avoided which may lead to disastrous consequences for native biodiversity. The system should be free from anthropogenic disturbances and should rely on eco-friendly ways of energy usage.

Eco-restoration awareness programme and policy level implementations are the three steps

Nature conservation and biodiversity are reciprocal to each other ?? I think they are complementary to each other. Nature conservation ultimately lead to enhancement of biodiversity unless the conservation has unidirectional approach for a particular species. Presently conservation projects are species specific and so all plan are made to that species centrist habitat development which negates the other species presence specially competitive or have negative interaction.

general conservation/ simply protection of a landscape or forest will certainly improve broader biodiversity irrespective of importance of species.

If a realistic current extinction rate of less than 1 per cent of species per decade --- is correct, then the rate of extinction reflects the increasing expansion of human ecological disturbance into the habitats of most species on the planet as our already overlarge population continues to expand. This rate of extinction - while not as horrendous as the mass extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs -- is excessive.

A slow, orchestrated reduction of human numbers to (perhaps) the one billion that existed in 1850, capable of being supported by renewable energy, would diminish the CURRENT massive expansion by humans into the habitats of most species as increasing areas on the planet would revert to their native (undisturbed) biodiverse ecological equilibrium.

Realistic nature conservation will occur when the human species recognize their integral tie to nature, not only as a user, but as a major part of the system. Outside of uncontrollable environmental factors (tornadoes, hurricanes, extreme climate changes, etc..), humans have the greatest impact on the natural environment that we live within. Even our best attempts to 'control' the systems for the betterment of humankind may end up doing more damage to the system and humans in the long-term (i.e. Smokey the Bear campaign to prevent forest fires), as the actions we tend to take only look at immediate impacts, thus failing to see how those actions may have greater long-term consequences to the system and humankind. Landscape level conservation is the most realistic 'development' for maintaining biodiversity and true conservation, for even the best example of smaller site conservation measures will eventually become isolated, fragmented and pauperate for lack of system functions important to sustaining variety of life evolved through its previous connections.

Accordingly, I propose the following research question in this area:

How to increase the effectiveness of the institutional policy of nature protection and biodiversity?

How should the systems of nature protection and biodiversity of natural ecosystems be dispersed in order to increase the effectiveness of these systems and reduce the scale of degradation of the natural environment?

What do you think should be improved in nature conservation systems and biodiversity of natural ecosystems in addition to just increasing financial outlays on nature conservation policies conducted by government agencies and ministries of the environment?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Thank you very much

Best wishes

A significant part of financial expenditures of nature conservation and biodiversity policy is devoted to the promotion of nature protection and natural environment protection issues. However, the effectiveness of this type of promotional campaigns is low, because without applying legal restrictions, enterprises do not change their technologies to be more ecological if they do not see in this business realized in a short time.

Even the occasional UN climate summits in which government representatives from the majority of countries take part do not cause significant real changes in the policy of nature protection and biodiversity? Usually, the largest industrial economies in the world do not sign the obligations of rapid reduction of greenhouse gases and the issue of increasing spending on environmental innovation in the energy sector.

Why, despite the growing scale of public awareness, there is no significant improvement in the implementation of nature conservation and biodiversity policy, there are no real measures that would result in a significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the slowing of the global warming process?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Thank you very much

Best wishes

In my opinion, the key is to fully understand multifaceted, complex biochemical, climatic and other processes that take place in biological natural ecosystems and are responsible for maintaining biological balance. In a situation where this balance is deformed by people, having the knowledge about the whole processes occurring in biological natural ecosystems are more likely to carry out reclamation degraded by the development of natural environments, there are greater opportunities to restore the balance of biological ecosystems and also to protect nature and biodiversity.

Do you agree with me on the above matter?

Please reply

I think it should be incorporated into the Trillion Tree campaign at least as far as flora is cincered. https://www.trilliontreecampaign.org/

Dariusz Prokopowicz and most others persist in linking an imagined future climate catastrophe to carbon containing greenhouse gas emissions.They apparently have not read alternative ideas, circulating for decades, such as are presented at:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-11/scientists-finland-japan-man-made-climate-change-doesnt-exist-practice

Dear Colleagues and Friends from RG,

Yes, many scientific data from climatologists' studies indicate that the global warming process has entered a strong upward trend and perhaps humanity has little influence on the change in the pace of this process. However, regardless of this, we should do everything we can regarding the implementation of the principles of sustainable ecological development, including the necessary ecological reforms primarily in the energy sector by developing renewable energy sources, electromobility, development of organic farming, improving waste segregation techniques, recycling, etc. These reforms ecological ones implemented in accordance with the green economy philosophy are necessary to at least partially slow down the global warming process. We owe it to next generations, we owe it to our children and grandchildren. One of the key elements and goals of the green economy philosophy, i.e. primarily the implementation of pro-ecological reforms consisting in the implementation of the principles of sustainable pro-ecological economic development, is nature protection, protection of natural biological ecosystems, protection of terrestrial biodiversity and its preservation for future generations.

What do you think about this topic?

What is your opinion on this topic?

Do you agree with me on the above matter?

Please reply

Best wishes

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Following

i agree with Dariusz that we need to spend less time on the debate whether the temperature increase is man-made or natural. we should focus on the resilience of the ecosystems to not be negatively affected. the recent paper in Science by Bastin et al. presents an interesting case where reforestation can mitigate much of the future carbon release .. .

DOI: 10.1126/science.aax0848

Biodiversity conservation is vital for economic growth and poverty reduction. Conserving habitats can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. Participating in Biodiversity Coservartion is essential & one can contribute to in so many ways. Identify locations of critical wildlife habitat for species at risk and the threats to these areas. Where possible, eliminate threats and maintain natural areas. Leave critical wildlife habitat undisturbed, especially nesting and denning sites.