Wikipedia:WikiProject Ecoregions/Ecoregions : another way to see the World

The ecoregions, as defined in Wikipedia, are initially based in those defined by WWF, and may be found on the National Geographic site (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/wildworld/terrestrial). However, the main goal for WWF was to work on conservation.

We, I and many others, believe thinking ecoregion instead of political geography (ie, borders between "regions" being defined by soil/climate/life associations rather than by nation politics) is a better way to solve some global issues.

So, thinking ecoregion is not only meant to think "conservation", it is another way to analyse and to represent areas in the world. At a scale fitting with human understanding, and fitting with human actions.

Reflecting back...some comments...

The first ecoregion I choose to work on was Ecoregion PA1303 (another cute name for Arabian Desert and East Sahero-Arabian xeric shrublands - in short, most of the area covered by Iraq :-)).

However, this desert is a desolated area, where less than 20 plant species grow, so of poor interest maybe. Some mentionned to me the next ecoregion to do would have to be an ecoregion with a tropical rainforest, where the biodiversity really bloom, and where conservation issues make sense

But ! There is more to ecoregions than just conservation ! It is not only meant to think "biological conservation", it is another way to analyse and to represent areas in the world. At a scale fitting with human understanding, and fitting with human actions.

Couple of ideas

Bedu in Sahara desert

Two weeks ago, this Bedu in the Saharian desert said :

the Algerian gov wants me to get an identity card. But when I do, I will be Algerian citizen. When I move across the sahara, where I and my ancestors have been living for generations, I happen to cross the Nigerian border. I am Nigerian as much as Algerian. I am first Bedu, and I need to move to live. Why should I have to ask the right to cross this border to Nigeria, since the Sahara on either side is my home ?

For several years, this area was dangerous, as the people were revolting against gov who didnot consider properly their needs to move, to live differently. Fortunately, things are better now. It was not a place to go. But, who put the borders between these two nations across the desert ? Did that make sens ?

See also bioregionalism, choice of life[?]).

Vine, fungi, fungicides, climate and political borders

Another thing to consider at the lower level maybe, but that is the idea.
Farmers grow vine. Current fungicides[?] (chemical acting against fungi) treatments in France are up to 14 per year against Mildiou[?]/Oïdium[?], and up to 4 against Botrytis.

One may do it several ways; either one apply as many treatments as thought necessary (prevention principle), then you get it, enormous increase in fungicides use as seen in the past years, appearance of resistance to the molecules and biosafety issues for the farmer and the consumer. Another way is to put nothing.

See also : sustainable farming, precautionary principle).

A third way is to try to treat only when necessary. Which means some ways to "guess" when it is (since when you see damages, it usually is too late). One may use models and statistics to do so for example. With data collected and analysed on a national scale (poor choice) or more data collected and analysed on a local scale (better). This is what is done in France, logical since alerts are usually given at the regional scale, by regional technical institutes.

Now, roughly, fungi develop very well at warm temperatures and high humidity (their reproductive gametophytes are water dependant - they swim in the water layer on top of leaves :-)). Also, heavy rain with splashy drops help contamination - as the spores are disseminated by the drop exploding on the earth and on the plant.

So, does that really make sens to gather data at a regional scale, if the region include very different climatic conditions ? Does that make sense to give the same alerts to a hot and dry plain just nearby a middle-height cold and stormy area ? .... It is not taking into account local characteristics.
Similarly, when alerts are given in the east of France, such as in Alsace, why should not these alerts not apply as well across the nation borders, in Germany, where the same soil/climate conditions exist ? There is a reason why German and French kept invading each other territories for centuries. There is little to differenciate "their" land and "our" land.

See also Natural Capitalism, protectionism, natural resource.

Natural barriers, rivers, upstream and downstream nations

A mountain or an ocean separating two nations are plain good examples of natural barriers. Local management of the land have little impact on the other nation ecology (unless it is disrupting the whole ecosphere[?] of course). But clearly, sharing a watershed or a river (either when one country claim owning one side and the other country the other side - or more often one located upstream and the other downstream) are situations bound to lead to major disagreements. The one upstream may pollute the water, or heat it with industries, may use too much of it for irrigation, may set dam and result in flooding or reduction of fertilizing silt input.

When one look at them carefully, the ecozones rather well define current blocs of influence. Europe is reconstituting the western palearctic zone. By making the Europe we can hope to reduce nations influence, and make more clear that some nations naturally share the same land, same climate, same rivers; Some even share similar cultures and same religions. Look at the cultural fights in some countries, where several cultures and languages are used, such as in Belgium.

Defining ecoregions

An ecoregion is a geographical area defined by us as being coherent in terms of climate, altitude, to a certain extent soil, flora and fauna association.

To define it better, one needs to indicate more information about water : form (liquid or solid) or localisation (ecoregion bordering an ocean, rivers flowing through it, flooded areas). To end up the description, precisions might be given in terms of natural resources (even if some obviously are defined by what is indicated above), such as fossile energy resources, wind and water resources, fish, wood, animals and plants, biodiversity

Then, it might be just as a GIS. Add a layer of humans on top of it. See where the political borders are compared to ecological ones. See where urban biomes are (these urban biomes might be considered at a smaller scale maybe, but when it comes to megalopolis areas, one might wonder if it wouldnot make sense).
You might further add information on humans, as language, religion, ethnies descriptions. And of course, these humans are (or are not) using resources available. Natural resources with more or less transformation (such as agriculture, mining, wood used).

Now, look at conflicts. Most of them are either triggered, or fueled by issues of "borders", rights for an ethnie[?] to be there rather than another, or by issues of resources availability (your apples are redder than mine, or could we trade our wheat against your oil, my pile of manure is higher than yours, I control more land than you do).

The last layer could be not only about use, but also about abuse. And resulting destruction, be it reversible or not reversible. Deforestation, biodiversity loss, continental plates borders fish disappearing, soils being eroded or getting saline, deserts being filled with uranium, whole seas just vanishing just pick your choice.

Now, if all this is "centralized", if every place on earth is described this way, maybe is it easier to see where the effort must be brought, and which type of effort is most required, and which areas requires special attention. Be it because some industries are just chemically damaging the area, because intensive agriculture is desrupting natural circle of life, or because local populations have been constantly been hitting on each other head for they want a place to live, but do not agree to live together, or because the local resources look so delicious that the first world power wants it all for it, or because one place have excess of one resource, but basic lack of another.

Is it ok that one place hurt the land to produce enormous amount of food, to sent it to a remote place, and receive in exchange an enormous amount of oil[?] ? To the point that those extracting the oil are not able to survive by their own means more than a couple of weeks ? In a land so poor it can't feed its inhabitants, is that ok to be so numerous, and to rely on others to feed you ? If we accept such a deal, isnot that clear there is a risk that non-sustainable ones will feel sort of "slaves" and try to regain dignity in another way ? Should I say that, who I live in a rather lucky country ?

Should we forget Ecoregion PA1303 (sorry, the Iraq desert) just because it has only 30 or so species, as a place that does not deserve conservation (and soon will have more mines and dead planes bits than life ?) Is that a good idea to let ecozone/blocs create for management ? Especially since one bloc will dominate the other ones ?

I found many (well, I also use) definitions given for ecological regions, all basically based on the same principles, but always at different scales, and mostly done on local areas; It make sense maybe to try to organize a world-wide frame description. However, if you look at some areas (dunno, such as Australasia), the areas are very well defined, nice borders, same scale of size it is easy to imagine management related to ecoregion.

And last, how exactly making all this information available is going to change anything ?

Well, first of all, as the role that Wikipedia is giving itself, it will make the information flow[?]. In a complex system, information flow is a rather high leverage points, places where a small shift in one thing can produce big changes in everything. Just as Wikipedia is planning to do, it may be used to deliver information to places where it is not currently going, and thus cause people to behave differently. It will offer feedback, a major cause of system malfunction, warn people of issues threatening the balance of the world, and give them help to decide where to act in priority.

Other consequences, you are welcome to just dream them :-)

See also : bioregionalism, WWF, Biomimicry, Global 200 for further input.