Search the archive.

The escalating threats between North Korea and the United States make it easy to forget the “nuclear nightmare,” as former US Secretary of Defense William J. Perry put it, that could result even from the use of just a single terrorist nuclear bomb in the heart of a major city.

At the risk of repeating the vast literature on the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—and the substantial literature surrounding nuclear tests and simulations since then—we attempt to spell out here the likely consequences of the explosion of a single terrorist nuclear bomb on a major city, and its subsequent ripple effects on the rest of the planet. Depending on where and when it was detonated, the blast, fire, initial radiation, and long-term radioactive fallout from such a bomb could leave the heart of a major city a smoldering radioactive ruin, killing tens or hundreds of thousands of people and wounding hundreds of thousands more. Vast areas would have to be evacuated and might be uninhabitable for years. Economic, political, and social aftershocks would ripple throughout the world. A single terrorist nuclear bomb would change history. The country attacked—and the world—would never be the same.

The international affairs and development policy circles have recently identified the nexus between food insecurity, conflict, and terrorism as an important issue area in achieving global peace (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO 2017). More specifically, whether or not the inability of certain governments to meet their citizens’ basic food needs can lead to international security spillovers, which threaten the safety of people beyond their borders, is a major question in international food security investments. For example, in speaking about US government investments in food security abroad, former U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden, is quoted as saying “Investments made to ward-off food insecurity and prevent its recurrence can prevent the vicious cycles of rising extremism, armed conflict and state failure that can require far larger commitments of resources down the road.”7 7 However, empirically, the relationships between food insecurity and both domestic and transnational terrorism has not been sufficiently studied. In the current study, we leverage the information available on the different dimensions of food insecurity to explore its various roles in both domestic and transnational terrorism. Our findings show promise in terms of the ability to unbundle the various components of food insecurity and examine their effects on various aspects of terrorism.

The definition of food security (insecurity) continues to evolve. Efforts to measure its hypothesized components and better understand its causes and consequences continue to improve (Swinnen 2010; Gundersen and Ziliak 2018). Some previous studies have attempted to study the effects of specific components on conflict. In our study, we go further by attempting to evaluate the roles of these components, the interplays between them, and their effects on various measures of terrorism outcomes. Our results suggest a number of interesting things. First, we find the lack of access to food sources to be a critical link factor between food insecurity and terrorism. More specifically, the lack of food access is found to increase the incidence of domestic terrorism. Our results contradict the findings of Koren and Bagozzi (2016) and Butler and Gates (2012), who showed that greater access to food is associated with increased incidence of conflict. These differences may be explained based on the differences in types of conflict and geographical units of analysis (grid, sub-national, or national level) employed in the research. For example, pastoral conflicts are expected to be mostly associated with the control and capture of resources and, hence, may be absent from areas of low food availability and access. Regarding the geographical unit of analysis, a grid-level analysis of terrorism incidents may be more indicative of the attack choices of the terrorist group, whereas a country-level analysis may also capture the underlying grievances that lead to the origin and spread of the group.

Agricultural productivity growth measures the increase in agricultural outputs per a given quantity of inputs – or the reduction in inputs per a given level of outputs. In other words, it measures the efficiency with which inputs are used to produce agricultural output. Agricultural productivity growth, as measured by total factor productivity (TFP), which is the most comprehensive measure of productivity growth, means producing more (or the same amount) of food, fiber, and other agricultural outputs with less total input, including less land, water, labor, capital and all materials used in production. TFP is not a measure of output from input intensification (more labor, capital, and other inputs per acre) or land expansion. Agricultural productivity growth is a powerful engine to increase food production without using more resources. It is also a powerful engine to reduce resource use for the production of the same amount of food. Productivity growth is not synonymous with output growth; it is growth in resource efficiency. Why do we need agricultural productivity growth? Since the 1990s, agricultural TFP growth has substituted for land expansion and resource intensification to maintain growth in world agriculture production, though from 2011-2019, TFP slowed and the rate at which new land was brought into production grew. Figure 1 - Global Agricultural Productivity Growth Over the last half century, agricultural TFP growth helped reduce poverty, increase food security, decrease land expansion and associated biodiversity loss, and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. It supported economic growth that put money in farmers’ pockets and boosted rural economies. Drilldown: Agricultural productivity growth alleviates poverty and improves food security. Agricultural productivity growth has led to dramatic reductions in global poverty and food insecurity and continues to be a primary engine of growth in many parts of the world. There is broad consensus about the critical role of productivity growth for alleviating poverty and improving food security: “In the agriculture-based countries, which include most of Sub-Saharan Africa, agriculture and its associated industries are essential to growth and to reducing mass poverty and food insecurity. Using agriculture as the basis for economic growth in the agriculture-based countries requires a productivity revolution in smallholder farming.”-World Bank, World Development Report 2008. “Addressing low productivity in food production can be an effective way of raising the overall supply of food, including nutritious foods, by reducing food prices and rising incomes, especially for the poorer family farmers and smallholder producers in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, like farmers, pastoralists and fisherfolk.” FAO 2020 State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World. “Continuing to make improvements to agricultural productivity, especially in low-income nations, is necessary to ensure sufficient food for an increasing global population and to traverse the last mile toward eliminating extreme poverty in developing nations: Two-thirds of the global extreme poor earn their livelihood in farming and productivity growth in agriculture has the largest impact of any sector on poverty reduction.” World Bank, 2019, Harvesting Prosperity. “Improvements in agricultural productivity, in particular total factor productivity (related to all production factors), offers an opportunity to simultaneously lower the pressure on the environment and increase farmer income by decreasing the input requirements.” 2021 UN Food Systems Summit Scientific Group Paper on Achieving Zero Hunger by 2030. Drilldown: Agricultural productivity growth is key to conserving resources, mitigating and adapting to climate change, and ensuring the viability of agriculture. The expansion of farmland and the intensification of resource use needed to meet the ever-growing global population’s food demand places a heavy burden on natural ecosystems. Raising the productivity of existing natural resources—rather than bringing new natural resources into production—is the only viable option to meet food security needs of current and future generations. Through its impact on drought, floods, pests, weather variability, and even human health, climate change will, and in many cases already is, challenging farmers to produce more with reduced and less reliable natural resource inputs. Innovative approaches to sustainable agricultural productivity growth will be critical to adaptation and to limiting the food security impacts of climate change. There is broad consensus about the critical role of productivity growth for conserving resources, mitigating and adapting to climate change, and ensuring long-term food and nutrition security: “Just as improved TFP has so far played an essential role in economic growth, it can play a major role in the mitigation of, and in adaptation to, climate change in the future. Should technical progress slow or miss the sustainability goals, agricultural production cannot keep pace with the growth in population, while reducing its negative impacts on the environment.” Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, 2021, Making Better Policies for Food Systems. “If today’s levels of production efficiency were to remain constant through 2050, then feeding the planet would entail clearing most of the world’s remaining forests, wiping out thousands more species, and releasing enough GHG emissions to exceed the 1.5°C and 2°C warming targets enshrined in the Paris Agreement—even if emissions from all other human activities were entirely eliminated.” World Resources Institute, 2019, .“Transformation to sustainable food production by 2050 will require at least a 75% reduction of yield gaps.” EAT-Lancet Commission, 2019, 

Further declines in biodiversity can accelerate climate change, lead to mass famine, and contribute to the proliferation of new diseases. Nature loss can have important ramifications for both businesses and humanity in the short and long term.

A decline in the ecosystem services that nature provides will initially pose a direct physical risk to businesses as harvests become more unreliable, weather patterns change, and pollinators no longer support agriculture. The risk is both event-driven, such as flooding or drought, and longer-term, such as the reduction in rainfall caused by deforestation. The economic implications go far beyond “front-line” agriculture as businesses are the links in multi-national supply chains and support local livelihoods and tax income, so the reverberations are farreaching.

As the sixth mass extinction event accelerates around the world, engulfing thousands of animal and plant species, humans risk facing a similar fate unless drastic interventions are made, according to Cristiana Pașca Palmer, the United Nations biodiversity chief, who recently spoke with the Guardian.

Palmer said that within the next two years, countries have to develop an ambitious plan to conserve land, protect animals, and stop practices that are harming wildlife. This effort is equally as urgent as the Paris climate agreement’s goal of mitigating climate change, she said.

On today's United Nations biodiversity day, we are being asked to focus on small islands and their unique ecology and fragility in times of globally pervasive threats such as climate change.

But, the whole planet is a small island in the vast sea of space, capable of producing food for all as a consequence of rich biodiversity. That diversity is under threat, our actions can strengthen it or weaken it. Our agriculture systems can help mitigate climate change and feed us, or they can accelerate the change and contribute to hunger.

While many may ponder the consequences of global warming, perhaps the biggest single environmental catastrophe in human history is unfolding in the garden. While all are rightly concerned about the possibility of nuclear war, an equally devastating time bomb is ticking away in the fields of farmers all over the world. Loss of genetic diversity in agriculture—silent, rapid, inexorable—is leading us to a rendezvous with extinction—to the doorstep of hunger on a scale we refuse to imagine. To simplify the environment as we have done with agriculture is to destroy the complex interrelationships that hold the natural world together. Reducing the diversity of life, we narrow our options for the future and render our own survival more precarious. It is life at the end of the limb. That is the subject of this book. Agronomists in the Philippines warned of what became known as southern corn leaf blight in 1061.' The disease was reported in Mexico not long after. In the summer of 1968, the first faint hint that the blight was in the United States came from seed growers in the Midwest. The danger was ignored. By the spring of 19701 the disease had taken hold in the Florida corn crop. But it was not until corn prices leapt thirty cents a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade that the world took notice; by then it was August—and too late. By the close of the year, Americans had lost fifteen percent of their most important crop—more than a billion bushels. Some southern states lost half their harvest and many of their farmers. While consumers suffered in the grocery stores, producers were out a billion dollars in lost yield. And the disaster was not solely domestic. U.S. seed exports may have spread the blight to Africa, Latin America and Asia.

Following the wide coverage of a suspected Chinese spy balloon in US airspace earlier in February, Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) and others have proposed legislation that would seek to limit foreign ownership of US farmland, targeting China, Russia, and other “adversaries” of the US government. But how much land do foreign entities really own in this country? And does that tell the whole story of the threat to our food supply and national security that emerges when farmland becomes a commodity or an investment opportunity?

Corporate and private land ownership

Previous research suggests that farmers in developing countries are constrained in their production and investment decisions. Evidence of delayed technology adoption, low investment in fixed capital, a preference for conservative crop choices and, more generally, a lack of innovative capacity is by now well established (Foster and Rosenzweig, 2010; Duflo et al., 2008; Suri, 2011). This has potentially severe and long-lasting effects on income and well-being in developing countries as a large share of their populations still rely on agricultural production as a major source of income.

Empirical evidence points to different explanations for the low propensity to innovate. Learning processes have been shown to discourage technology adoption (Besley and Case, 1993; Munshi, 2004; Conley and Udry, 2010), as have time-inconsistent preferences (Duflo et al., 2011) and low levels of human capital (Foster and Rosenzweig, 1996). In addition, market imperfections such as the lack of insurance mechanisms, dysfunctional labour markets and limited access to credit are often cited explanations. On the relative importance of these constraints, however, the literature is much less conclusive. Rosenzweig and Binswanger (1993) and Dercon (1996) provide evidence that uninsured risks prevent farmers from holding profitable asset portfolios and planting profitable crops. On the other hand, Rosenzweig and Wolpin (1993), Fafchamps and Pender (1997) and Gine and Klonner (2005) identify the lack of credit as a major explanation for foregone profits. One of the major challenges in disentangling both constraints is to find exogenous variation in one or both. Observational studies mainly rely on proxies for both constraints, but face the challenge that indicators representing a household’s ability to cope with shocks (such as wealth, human or social capital) are typically the same indicators that predict access to credit and or own financing possibilities.

The food crisis caused by COVID-19 does not mean a shortage of basic goods. During the disease pandemic, the share of grocery stores and retail markets has declined; however, large quantities of fresh products on farms have been spoiled and wasted. COVID-19 has had many negative economic effects on people, leading to job losses and food insecurity, especially in low-income countries. These effects have led to a global food crisis. COVID-19 has exacerbated the previous problems in the global food system. Many of these problems were ignored or modified before the disease. The problems concerned with hunger, food deprivation, and food wastage have long been debated. However, the issue of food supply from farm to fork has never been so important and urgent. The limitations of COVID-19 are severe, unfamiliar (for farmers), and completely unexpected to the food supply system.As reported in various researches, food anxiety and fears from food safety crises can change consumers’ sensitivities and beliefs about food health and lead them to use natural and organic diets. COVID-19 prevention measures such as closure, staying at home, public quarantine, and stopping transportation in communities are very challenging. With the approval of the first case of the disease, many developing countries imposed a short-term state of emergency. In some cases, the movement of imports and exports was slower or even stopped. During this economic crisis, countries must provide citizens with emergency packages that may not be enough to meet the needs of their vulnerable populations. During the illness, the transport sector has shut down due to closures of various countries, which can disrupt the supply chain of basic goods, especially food and humanitarian aid. Under these circumstances, the developing countries, mainly dependent on agriculture, will probably run out of food. As a result, hunger and malnutrition put their health at risk due to poor and unhealthy eating habits. In addition, countries that are highly dependent on food imports and developing countries dependent on exports of raw materials such as oil are also affected. The COVID-19 crisis has shown that a coordinated local food distribution system is superior to the organizations that supply and distribute food. In the United States, the emergency food distribution system includes food banks that provide local food warehouses. During the disease, even reputable food banks, which depend on the help of retailers, are involved in this crisis and often fail to provide food stocks due to the slow assistance of retailers. In contrast, the food banks with wholesale suppliers have been better able to maintain access to food. With the spread of the COVID-19, most countries have imposed higher customs controls on cargo ships, despite the risk of food spoilage as well as disruption of transport activities. Political measures have been taken to prevent the spread of COVID-19, which may globally reduce food production and increase prices. Because the governments have imposed restrictions on food exports and nationwide closures, such reactions can cause food crises. For example, during the global economic downturn of 2007–08, the doubling of world food prices was largely due to trade restrictions imposed by the largest exporters of rice, wheat, and soybeans. These measures, intending to prevent shortages in some countries, helped supply basic foodstuffs in many national markets. Various reports indicate that food insecurity caused by the COVID-19 crisis is rapidly increasing. The vulnerable population is more exposed to food insecurity. A study in the United States shows that 44% of low-income adults do not have food security and are mostly black and Hispanic.,  Although the effects of COVID-19 on food security in developed countries have been relatively minor so far, more serious problems are emerging in developing countries. In developed countries, the demand for some staple foods, such as rice, was initially very high, and the consumers bought many supplies due to the fear of food shortages. Some food consumption patterns have changed due to people being restricted to eating at home rather than in restaurants. In many developing countries, COVID-19 had a severe impact on employment and income, creating a major food crisis for many people who could not afford food. With this crisis that led to unprecedented unemployment, people who had never experienced hunger before became vulnerable. It is estimated that 40% of people receiving services from food banks in recent weeks are first-time customers. The studies have reported that about one-fifth of Africa’s population (256 million people) is malnourished, and the number of hungry people increases. It is expected that Africa’s population will double by 2050, and their food demand will triple. Therefore, to provide food to expand and have a healthy life and increase welfare based on the sustainable development goals (SDGs), it is necessary to preserve ecosystems and reduce inequalities. Thus increasing the food stocks, especially in the agricultural off-season, may help reduce unpredictable shock

For nearly two centuries, the Rieckmann family has raised cows for milk in this muddy patch of land in the middle of Wisconsin. Mary and John Rieckmann, who now run the farm and its 45 cows, have seen all manners of ups and downs — droughts, floods, oversupplies of milk that sent prices tumbling. But they’ve never seen a crisis quite like this one.

The Rieckmanns are about $300,000 in debt, and bill collectors are hounding them about the feed bill and a repayment for a used tractor they bought to keep the farm going. But it’s harder than ever to make any money, much less pay the debt, Mary Rieckmann says, in the yellow-wallpapered kitchen of the sagging farmhouse where she lives with her husband, John, and two of their seven children. The Rieckmanns receive about $16 for every 100 pounds of milk they sell, a 40 percent decrease from six years back. There are weeks where the entire milk check goes towards the $2,100 monthly mortgage payment. Two bill collectors have taken out liens against the farm. “What do you do when you you’re up against the wall and you just don’t know which way to turn?” Rieckmann says, as her ancient fridge begins to hum. Mary, 79, and John, 80, had hoped to leave the farm to their two sons, age 55 and 50, who still live with them and run the farm. Now they’re less focused on their legacy than about making it through the week.

Five years ago, countries and businesses committed to halving deforestation by 2020 and ending it entirely by 2030. The 2020 goal was a big, bold target – and one that has fallen flat on its face. Since 2014, the area of forest destroyed annually has got dramatically worse, increasing more than 40 per cent globally. An area of 26 million hectares, roughly the size of the UK, was lost annually between 2014 and 2018, each year unlocking carbon emission equivalent to the EU’s annual footprint, a report by an international group of research institutions and NGOs has found. The vast majority of the deforestation took place in the tropics. The losses mean the 2020 target is now likely impossible to meet. “It’s a wake-up call. The situation now is more dire than five years ago,” says Stephanie Roe of the University of Virginia, one of the report authors. So why is the world failing to make good on its promises to stop deforestation? While the 2014 New York Declaration on Forests was endorsed by some big forest countries including Indonesia and a few Brazilian states, along with the US and EU, it notably did not include Brazil. The country has the biggest forests and still has the biggest absolute losses. While it made huge strides in cutting deforestation after the rampant clearances in the noughties, preliminary deforestation data and the fires in the Amazon this year suggest progress is now going into reverse. “There is a clear political agenda to prioritize agriculture and extractive industries and roll back environmental protections,” says Constance McDermott at the University of Oxford. While Latin America is still suffering the biggest absolute forest loss, Africa has seen the most significant change, with tree cover loss up 146 per cent in the past five years. This is largely due to economic growth, particularly in the Congo basin. “There is pressure to allow expansion of palm oil, cocoa and other commercial land uses,” says McDermott. The Democratic Republic of Congo continues to suffer from political instability, she says, which research has linked to forest cover.

None of the world’s major economies – including the entire G20 – have a climate plan that meets their obligations under the 2015 Paris Agreement, according to an analysis published Wednesday, despite scientists’ warning that deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions are needed now. The watchdog Climate Action Tracker (CAT) analyzed the policies of 36 countries, as well as the 27-nation European Union, and found that all major economies were off track to contain global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The countries together make up 80% of the world’s emissions. The analysis also included some low-emissions countries, and found that the Gambia was the only nation among all 37 to be “1.5 compatible.” As the study only included a few smaller emitters, it’s possible there are other developing countries in the world on track as well. Local people are rescued by a boat as flooding due to heavy rain inundated Takeo City in western Japan on August 15, 2021. Most in the developed world think the US is doing a bad job on climate, Pew poll finds Under the 2015 Paris accord, more than 190 countries agreed to limit the increase in global temperatures to well below 2 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures – ideally to 1.5 degrees. Scientists have said 2 degrees is a critical threshold for some of the Earth’s ecosystems, and is one that would also trigger more catastrophic extreme weather events. The report comes less than two months ahead of UN-brokered international climate talks in Glasgow, known as COP26. The event’s president, British MP Alok Sharma, has said he hopes to “keep 1.5 alive” as a global warming limit. CAT reported that progress had stalled after dozens of world leaders made ambitious new pledges to slash greenhouse gas emissions during the US President Joe Biden’s Climate Leaders’ Summit in April. “In May, after the Climate Leaders’ Summit and the Petersburg dialogue, we reported that there appeared to be good momentum with new climate action commitments,” said Niklas Höhne, a founding partner of the NewClimate Institute, a CAT partner. “But since then, there has been little to no improvement: nothing is moving,” he said. “Anyone would think they have all the time in the world, when in fact the opposite is the case.” Six countries, including the UK, have an overall climate policy that is “nearly sufficient,” according to the report, meaning they are not yet consistent with 1.5-degree alignment but could be with small improvements. The UK’s targets are in line with 1.5 degrees, but its policies in practice don’t meet the benchmark. The overall climate plans of the US, European Union and Japan are not sufficient to reach the 1.5-degree goal, the analysis found, saying that while their domestic targets are relatively close to where they need to be, their international policies are not. CAT had previously categorized the US as “critically insufficient” – the worst category – under former President Donald Trump, who formally withdrew the country from the Paris Agreement shortly before the end of his term.

Are we safe now from events like this? Or are we more vulnerable? Could a pandemic threaten humanity’s future?10

The Black Death was not the only biological disaster to scar human history. It was not even the only great bubonic plague. In 541 CE the Plague of Justinian struck the Byzantine Empire. Over three years it took the lives of roughly 3 percent of the world’s people.11

Causes of Disease Outbreaks Several factors contribute to the outbreak of infectious diseases. Contraction can occur as a result of transmission from people, animals, or even the environment. For example: Weather conditions.(link is external and opens in a new window) For example, whooping cough occurs in spring, whereas measles tend to appear in the winter season. Exposure to chemicals or radioactive materials.(link is external and opens in a new window) For example, Minamata is a disease contracted after exposure to mercury. The social aftermath of disasters(link is external and opens in a new window) such as storms, earthquakes, and droughts can lead to high disease transmission. A number of environmental factors(link is external and opens in a new window) such as water supply, food, air quality, and sanitation facilities can catalyze the spread of infectious diseases. Disease origins(link is external and opens in a new window) can also be unknown. These kinds of diseases could be caused by a variety of factors, including: A new or newly modified pathogen Natural toxins Undetected chemical releases Unknown ionizing radiation over-exposure The field of epidemiology works to trace these unidentified outbreaks to the source in an effort to protect public health and safety.

But people around the world are working to create an environment that helps bees thrive. In honor of National Honey Month, Food Tank is highlighting 15 organizations and initiatives working to preserve the livelihood of bees, the ecosystem, and the global food supply. 1. Bees for Development, United Kingdom Bees for Development is an international organization that utilizes beekeeping as a tool to alleviate poverty and retain biodiversity around the world. They work in over 50 countries within local communities, and implement sustainable beekeeping techniques that use only local bees and local resources. They have an open-access information portal that provides information on bees and beekeeping worldwide. Bees for Development also provides advice and guidance to the World Bank, the United Nations, and other international organizations. 2. BEES for the World, Germany BEES for the World is dedicated to designing sustainable supply chains for high quality organic-certified bee products all over the world. Their commitment is to Biodiversity, Education, Empowerment, and Sustainability (BEES). They work primarily within African countries to support forest beekeeping. By empowering local communities in the production of high-quality beeswax and connecting them to markets, the group protects local ecosystems while fostering the creation of jobs. 3. Elephant and Bees Project, Kenya What began as a strategic plan to save the elephants, grew into a conservation project for elephants and bees alike. The Elephant and Bees Project uses beehive fences – a natural deterrent of elephants – to keep elephants off of farmland, reducing crop damage. This not only increases protected habitats for bees, but also helps educate farmers on the relationship between bees and crop health. The project supports increased bee populations and works in multiple countries throughout Africa. 4. Federation of Nepal Beekeepers, Nepal The Federation of Nepal Beekeepers was established in 1999 to support and empower local beekeepers throughout Nepal. This umbrella organization advocates for national policies that benefit beekeepers, their bees, and their livelihoods. The organization also works to increase the capacity of beekeepers by training and educating farmers on the importance of bees in pollination and pasture management. 5. Honeybee Research Institute, Pakistan The Honeybee Research Institute promotes beekeeping in Pakistan with the honeybee Apis mellifera. While Apis mellifera honey bees were initially imported from Australia, the species has thrived in Pakistan since the late 1970s. With over 400,000 colonies present today, the bees contribute to increased honey production, income-production for rural populations, and increasing biodiversity. The Institute provides beekeeping training courses, promotes beekeeping for income generation, and has on-going research projects. 6. Pesticide Action Network Europe, Belgium Founded in 1987, the Pesticide Action Network (PAN Europe) is a network of consumer, public health, and environmental organizations, trades unions, women’s groups, and farmer associations from across Europe. As advocates for a pesticide-free Europe, PAN Europe works closely with government representatives to try to reduce the use of hazardous pesticides. Through their European Citizens’ Initiative, “Save Bees and Farmers”, they are collecting signatures and calling on the European Commission to phase out synthetic pesticides in agriculture by 2035. 7. Pollinator Partnership Canada, Canada As a leader in pollinator research and habitat improvement for over 20 years, Pollinator Partnership Canada provides and supports various projects that help protect pollinators. They offer a Pollinator Steward Certification program for land managers, communities, and organizations. Pollinator Partnership also successfully advocated for Pollinator Week- inaugurally designated June 22-28, 2020 – in Canada to raise awareness about the importance of pollinators. 8. Purple Hive Project, Australia Australia is the only continent not yet affected by the Varroa destructor mite, but researchers fear that Australian honey bees may soon be at risk. The Purple Hive Project is on a mission to prevent this mite – which decimates colonies and spreads honey bee viruses – from impacting honey bees in Australia. The Purple Hive uses Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) technology to detect the mite in real-time so that its spread can be prevented. Their long-term goal is to create a network of hives in high-risk locations across Australia. 9. Slovenian Beekeepers Association, Slovenia The Slovenian Beekeepers Association, originally founded in the late 1800s, offers key beekeeping knowledge and support within the country. The Association advocates and raises awareness on behalf of bees and their importance in the environment, provides beekeeping camps and workshops, and publishes a monthly beekeeping magazine. They are also registered as a research institution, where they develop safe bee products and research ways to protect the Carniolan bee, a type of honey bee indigenous to Slovenia. 10. The Bee Girl Organization, United States Sarah “Bee Girl” Red-Laird founded The Bee Girl Organization to inspire communities to conserve bees, flowers, and food. The Bee Girl team engages communities across the globe, providing educational classes and resources for regenerative beekeeping. In 2019, Bee Girl partnered with a local vineyard to initiate a Bee Friendly Vineyards pilot program. They planted 1800 square feet of sunflowers on a plot of unused land to attract bees to the area. This year, they are partnering with an additional vineyard to begin an in-depth research and habitat project. 11. The Honeybee Conservancy, United States The Honeybee Conservancy is dedicated to protecting bees and securing food justice through education, research, habitat creation, and advocacy. Their flagship program, Sponsor-A-Hive, places native bee homes within urban gardens, schools, and organizations that grow produce to bolster local ecosystems. Last year they unveiled an eight-foot-tall rooftop beehive on the Empire State Building, which will house over 70,000 honey bees. Their goal is to place one million bees to support communities of need across the U.S.. 12. Under the Mango Tree, India Under the Mango Tree was founded with the mission to improve the livelihoods of smallholder farmers in rural India. The organization teaches farmers how to maintain bee boxes on their farms and harvest honey, and connects them to markets to sell their honey. They specifically focus on the indigenous bee, Apis cerana indica, to increase pollination and crop yields. In addition, the organization has trained upwards of 1,000 women to be beekeepers. 13. United Nations Development Program, International To help achieve the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) partners with local communities in multiple countries to work with smallholder beekeepers and farmers around the world. Through training and resources they help beekeepers earn a decent living and support the health of their communities, while providing a healthy habitat for bees. With help from the UNDP, beekeepers can more easily access markets and improve their livelihoods. 14. Wheen Bee Foundation, Australia Gretchen Wheen, a pioneer in bee research and one of Australia’s most well known beekeepers, donated her estate to establish the Wheen Bee Foundation upon her passing in 2012. The Foundation promotes awareness of the importance of bees for food security and ecosystem health. It funds research and development projects that seek to improve the health of the local bee population. They are currently working in partnership with other organizations to save the Green Carpenter Bee on Kangaroo Island, as the island recovers from the destructive fires earlier this year. 15. World Bee Project, England Using cloud computing technology, the World Bee Project created the world’s first globally coordinated honeybee hive monitoring initiative. This Network will provide data that can inform international actions to improve pollinator habitats, food security, and nutrition. With this project, developers hope to deliver findings to smallholder farmers around the world.

Bumblebees are some of our most effective pollinators, but more than one-quarter of the species is facing extinction. Bees, butterflies and other pollinators are under threat by habitat loss, pesticides, disease and climate change. Bees sustain our lives in ways we sometimes fail to recognize. They are as an essential part of our food web -- from blueberries to pumpkins -- and even play a role in growing the cotton used in much of our clothing. European honeybees that farmers bring in to pollinate crops have suffered from colony collapse disorder and parasites. While 15% of the world's food is pollinated by them, nearly 80% is pollinated by native bees and other wildlife, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Honeybee keepers can rebuild their colonies, but bumblebees and other native species need our help. MORE: Nearly 40% decline in honeybee population last winter 'unsustainable,' experts say As our primary pollinators, bees efficiently collect and transport pollen from plant to plant. Butterflies, moths, beetles ants and some birds and bats also help move pollen accidentally but are no match for the efficiency of bees. There are 3,600 species of native bees in the United States and an estimated 20,000 species worldwide, according to the Xerces Society. Currently, only the Rusty Patched bumblebee is listed as endangered. There are simply too many other species to track in order to protect in this way.

Bees are small creatures that play a huge role in the livelihood of humans and our ecosystem. Not only are they essential for ensuring pollination, but these hard working creatures also play an important role when it comes to food production. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Bees and other pollinators such as birds and bats, affect 35 percent of the world’s crop production, increasing outputs of 87 of the leading food crops worldwide, plus many plant-derived medicines.” Pollination is the foundation of human nutrition including the number of fruits, seeds, and other sources of food. More importantly, it is vital to the variety and quality of food as well.

It also bears noting that even if the two migratory populations of monarch butterflies in North America are eventually lost, the species as a whole will not go extinct, because there are many other monarch populations around the world. IUCN lists 21 countries worldwide where monarchs have self-sustaining populations. In fact, given the abundance of monarchs globally, the IUCN has designated the species as a whole as being of least concern in terms of extinction risk. Furthermore, monarchs have demonstrated that they can adapt to our changing world by developing new populations and lifestyles. For example, in south Florida, some previously migratory monarchs have become full time residents as people have locally introduced tropical milkweed species that provide year-round caterpillar food. Moreover, descendants of the North American monarchs have established new populations in places like Australia and Hawaii, and they may be expanding into Europe and Africa. Personally, I take some comfort in knowing that there’s still time to save the migratory monarch populations in North America. I hope to continue to celebrate their arrival each year and even raise the occasional caterpillar to a butterfly. But it is also important not to lose sight of the fact that monarchs as a species are not heading toward extinction. Instead, they’re survivors, showcasing the impressive abilities that many species have to adapt in a human-dominated and changing world.

What might be most surprising about the monarch butterfly, then, is that as a species, it is not actually endangered. The International Union for Conservation of Nature categorizes it a “species of least concern,” the designation reserved for those considered furthest from danger of extinction. A significant portion of this disconnect can be explained by the amount of press different segments of the global monarch butterfly population receive. Two distinct groups of migratory monarchs exist in North America: the aforementioned Mexican-Canadian population and a smaller population west of the Rockies that overwinters in California. It seems journalists simply can’t resist using these breathtaking, drama-filled migration spectacles for an attention-grabbing headline or lede (guilty!). So, as far as many people are aware, these are the only monarchs that exist—let’s call them the celebrity North American migrators. And it’s true: These populations, in Mexico and California, are on the downswing. The Western population in particular has been raising alarm bells, with some estimates putting the decimation as high as a 99 percent decline over the past few decades. After years of public pressure, our celebrity North American migratory subpopulations were listed as, yes, an endangered species in July. However, you’d be mistaken to think that monarchs are in dire need of our help—or remotely close to extinction. There are many, many more populations of monarchs. Danaus plexippus is also native throughout the rest of the Americas, with stable populations found in Florida, through the entirety of Central America and the Caribbean, and as far south as Venezuela. In the 1800s, likely as unintentional stowaways on trade ships, the insect colonized much of the tropical world. Today, the butterflies can also be found in abundance in Spain, Morocco, Hawaii, Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, and much of the South Pacific; in these locales, they are a largely harmless, non-native, but still immensely successful species. Furthermore, there are two other species of monarch, which are also apparently stable in their numbers—Danaus erippus, which inhabits the southern half of South America, and Danaus cleophile, exclusive to the islands of Jamaica and Hispaniola. Even when it comes to the North American migratory subpopulations, the science is far from settled on just how urgent their peril is. Like many insect species, monarchs naturally have enormous population fluctuations from year to year. There’s no reliable data prior to 1993 on the North American monarch butterfly headcount. It’s possible that the years when reliable data collection started were anomalously abundant, and populations today have simply settled into more reasonable numbers.