BIODIVERSITY

AND

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

ECL/IAD 217 Biodiversity Group

Prof. Ben Orlove Vanessa deKonnick

Winter Quarter, 2002 Kerin Gould

Claire Lucas

David Manahan

Travis Marcotte

David Rosenberg

Bettina Scheinder

Matt Smith

Chantal Stoner

Bill Travers

INTRODUCTION

As world populations and their subsequent resource, land use, and consumptive attitudes continue to increase, habitat changes are rapidly reconfiguring the earth’s landscape. While these changes often bode well for humans, many other organisms are finding this “new” landscape less hospitable, evidenced by the shifting populations and ranges of these organisms. To what extent these “biodiversity” changes are occurring is difficult to measure, as the definitions for the scale and value of biodiversity (not to mention the mechanics of measurement) remain elusive. Yet, despite the ambiguity in defining the scale, measure, and value of biodiversity, there exist a number of viable, working techniques, criteria, and programs for addressing what some are calling the biodiversity crisis. This paper first describes the attributes of biodiversity as a natural resource – including its temporal and spatial scale; economic, ecological, and cultural valuation; property regimes and forms of ownership; and the social and political systems governing use and conservation. Second, we summarize approaches for sustainable development that include biodiversity, classifying each approach as technologically, economically, and/or socially relevant.

ATTRIBUTES

Biodiversity definitions and its conservation have become issues of significant importance, particularly as the commitment to include biodiversity into sustainable development initiatives is growing. Although we often cannot agree upon a strict definition of biodiversity, we can look at its attributes to better understand the range of meanings and the overall importance within sustainable development. The following section will detail the specific ways biodiversity is approached in terms of scale; economic, ecological and cultural valuation; data collection and information; and ownership characteristics.

Temporal and Spatial Scale: The temporal and spatial scale of biodiversity as a resource can be seen as threatened and managed wisely or not, depending on how we look at it and over what time scale. How do we know if biodiversity is actually being depleted or used up? Is it really an issue at all (some would certainly argue that it is not)? The answer differs as we look at it from a global scale, community scale, or species scale, and depending if we measure ‘use’ over days or millennia. Determining the scale and time frame in which we will view biodiversity is critical before discussing and developing strategies for management or protection. The total number of species present in a given area often defines biodiversity. However, scale and temporal measures are key players that impact how this will change. Service (1997) approaches biodiversity from a particularly scientific/biological viewpoint, but at the level of genetic diversity of organisms. Service also briefly addresses the cultural bias involved with the study and interpretation of biotic diversity, meaning “macro-fauna” is more culturally “valuable” than microbes. James, et al. (1999) equate biodiversity with the number of acres protected in reserves by continent. When looking at conservation efforts by continent, it then becomes possible to ignore the complexity of levels within biodiversity that exist in each region. For example, while North America has millions of acres of protected areas for biological diversity, a large amount of this lies within relatively sterile alpine rock and ice areas, thereby endangering biologically richer areas from potential preservation efforts. It is common to view biodiversity at the very localized level, even microscopic as Service attempts, and to then develop measures on a continent-wide scale as James, et. al. describe. These two examples are indicative of the range and complexities of measure that scientists and policy makers are using to carry out the study of biodiversity.

Valuation: The lenses we use to value biodiversity will inevitably play a critical role in the way we measure, evaluate utility, and design and implement sustainable conservation measures. McNeely (1994) introduces different approaches to valuation that include both anthropogenic benefits and inherent ecosystem benefits. He defines biodiverse areas as ‘hard workers’ for society, providing resources for human needs (both physical and mental) and that these areas have value in themselves. Throughout this course we have identified and discussed three areas of valuation: economic, ecological, and cultural approaches to valuing biodiversity.

Economic: While historic economic valuation concentrated on market values for biodiversity (such as fisheries or ivory), much of the current debate focuses on economic benefits not initially included in the biodiversity conservation equation. For example, biodiversity can also be valued as an ‘insurance plan’ for agricultural stability (Perrings, 2001), a partner in the delivery of critical ecosystem services, a provider of income and sustenance through harvested forest products (Godoy, et. al., 2000), and/or a storehouse of potentially beneficial products that can be derived from various organisms. (Macilwain, 1998) Although using the tools of economics, particularly prices and supply/demand relationships, to develop conservation measures seems logical, arriving at a truly meaningful dollar value upon which we can ‘trade’ biodiversity services has been extremely difficult.

Ecological: Although it is clear that we can not truly separate the various aspects of biodiversity, there have been many attempts to evaluate biodiversity from a strictly scientific point of view. These ecological approaches have largely focused on understanding or defining the concept of biodiversity. While there is debate among scientists, most agree that a meaningful and ideal definition of biodiversity considers all organisms from all types of habitats and incorporates the genetic diversity within these species. While it is not implicit in many definitions, the ecosystem level must be incorporated into our understanding of biodiversity because organisms and their genes do not exist in isolation, but rather they interact with other organisms in the ecosystem. Historically, scientists have categorized species richness using the Alpha/Beta/Gamma diversity concept. Essentially this conceptual framework attempts to understand the differences between "within-habitat diversity" (alpha diversity), "between-habitat diversity" (beta diversity), and regional level diversity (gamma diversity). Unfortunately, different scientists have defined and used these terms differently, thus clouding the definitions and their usages. (Krebs, 1994) In addition, differences in taxonomic units (family vs. genus vs. species) or which types of organisms (trees vs. vertebrates vs. microorganisms) are measured can skew the results of any diversity studies. In terms of evaluating the most "important" areas for biodiversity conservation, there are conflicting views. However, there does exist some agreement among scientists and policy-makers that the main foci should be: 1) Regions where biodiversity seems to be very high; 2) Regions where the organisms appear to be the "most unique" (more endemic species); and 3) Regions with many rare and endangered species. While there is currently no way to truly evaluate the above idealized regions, most agree that specific species of plants or vertebrates (and now even invertebrates or fungi) can be used as surrogate measures for the biodiversity of all (or most) other organisms within the particular ecosystem.

Cultural: Not only does biodiversity provide resources for human needs, including food, building materials, fuel, and firewood (which can be readily placed in economic valuation), it also contributes to the spiritual well being of individuals and cultures. McNeely (1994) expresses the cultural importance of biodiversity when stating that, “living richness, natural beauty, and cultural significance are a source of inspiration and are an irreplaceable asset of the countries to which they belong.” Additionally, many cultural traditions, religions, and patterns of existence are rooted in the ecologically diverse surroundings in which they habitate. As the biodiversity debate evolves, it is important to remain aware that the cultural value of biodiversity is immeasurable, and that variations in how the spiritual well being and/or benefits of biodiversity are perceived across cultures is crucial to understanding ourselves.

Property regimes and ownership: Given the uncertainty surrounding the definition of biodiversity, it is not surprising that the effectiveness of property regimes for this resource are equally controversial. One such property regime, open access rights for local communities, has been credited by some conservationists as providing local people with an economic incentive to conserve. Proponents of "integrated conservation-development projects" (or "community-based programs") that bridge conservation with resource use argue that, "Local people are said to react positively to these initiatives because they typically receive employment, tangible benefits in cash or in kind, and also because they develop a sense of ‘ownership’ over wildlife after having become involved in decisions having to do with its use." (see Barrett and Arcese 1995: 1074 for review) The success of programs advocating open access rights is debatable, however, as Barrett and Arcese (1995) note that there is often selectional provision of benefits to residents closest to reserves, a lack of monitoring of the responses of biological resources, and frequently the programs are not economically sustainable. Another property regime, protected areas, are viewed by some as "…often the most effective form of land use in economic as well as ecological terms." (McNeely 1994: 391) Protected areas range from strict reserves (prohibiting resource use) to areas managed for sustainable use. While the primary ownership of resources within protected areas is afforded to governments, insufficient funding has led to an increasing foothold of local groups, international organizations, and private landowners in protected areas. (McNeely 1994) Hill and Press (1994) provide an example of a successful comanagement of a protected area in Kakadu National Park by Aboriginal people and state agencies. Orlove (1991), however, describes an apparent lack of agreement between local peasants and the state concerning ownership rights in Lake Titicaca, Peru.

The relationship between private-property regimes of resource management and biodiversity has also received much attention, particularly in the context of bioprospecting. While the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Convention on Biological Diversity endorsed "the concept of nations holding property rights to their indigenous species," (Macilwain 1998: 535) tension exists between the idea of "accessibility and equity" of natural resources and "pressures for private ownership" by potential bioprospectors. (Macilwain 1998: 537) Conflicts of biodiversity ownership also highlight the importance of common property rights. The notion that "first world citizens" have property rights to biodiversity in other countries, even continents, was illustrated by the aid international organizations lent to assist Amazon Indians in defending natural resources against state-endorsed economic development projects. Conklin and Graham (1995: 695) state that, "people in places like Munich, Ann Arbor, and Rome came to feel like they had a personal stake in what was happening in places like Mato Grosso, Acre, and Roraima." While common property rights may lead to great difficulty in regulating the use of resources, and hence the bleak "tragedy of the commons" scenario described by Hardin (1988), they can also lead to surgence of international effort to protect biodiversity.

Social and political systems governing use and conservation: Given the variety of social and political systems governing resource use, it is not surprising that McNeely (1992) noted a "fundamental mismatch" between natural systems and the organizations attempting to manage them: "natural systems are highly inter-related structures with many complementary functions, while government agencies for managing these systems are characterized by fragmentation, conflicts in use of resources and jurisdiction over that use, polarization of interests, and poor coordination and communication." (McNeely 1992: 25) He further suggests that biodiversity problems are rooted in the inequities in the distribution of power, information and resources; the effects of global market forces and market failures that mis-value natural resources; the separation of environmental conservation and economic development, often involving the decline of indigenous systems of resource management; unsustainable levels of resource demand at a global level; and lack of an ethical commitment to sustainability. (McNeely 1992:.11) Thus, from McNeely’s discussion, as well as from our own class discussions, social and political systems governing the use and conservation of biodiverse regions are at the foundation of the causes of the biodiversity crisis.

Each of these systems, which range in scale from international organizations to indigenous communities, plays a unique role in governing the fate of biodiversity. For example, one of the most prominent international efforts concerning biodiversity was the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD). The convention was signed by 150 countries and promoted three objectives: 1) conservation of biodiversity; 2) sustainable use of resources; and 3) equitable sharing of the benefits of biodiversity. (Inamdar et al. 1999: 1856) One outcome of the CBD was its affirmation of the role of national governments: "it was agreed that countries are sovereign and have control over the use of their own genetic resources, and that they need to act to protect their interests in the growing market for biological resources." (McNeely 1994: 397) The CBD also resulted in the formation of the Global Environment Facility, an effort to provide funding for small NGO grants and regional action plans. The funding of regional programs was an effort to increase funding not only to national parks and protected areas, but entire "bioregions" which include land surrounding these protected sites. (McNeely 1994: 399) Interactions between these aforementioned systems of resource use are frequently mediated by NGOs. Princen (1994) notes that in some cases international organizations (e.g. CITES) must act cautiously to respect national boundaries, while NGOs are not bound by such boundaries. NGOs step in when "action at either the international level…or at the domestic level is insufficient…." (Princen 1994: 152.) and link "local resource conditions in range states to global economic conditions." (Princen 1994: 121) NGOs are also active in bridging relations between local communities and political systems of resource use. International NGOs strongly defended the rights of Amazon Indians, for example, against the Brazilian government’s efforts to develop areas of the rainforest. (Conklin and Graham, 1995) Conversely, Kakadu National Park, Australia, provides an example of successful negotiations, and subsequently comanagement, between local people (Aborigines) and a national government agency. (Hill and Press 1994) Kakadu National Park therefore illustrates the argument of McNeely (1992: 22) that, "…where local people are given greater responsibility for resource management - when they are given a real stake in conservation- they have shown both a willingness and a capacity to conserve." This notion of local people with a role in governing resource use has led to the development of "Community-based conservation" efforts (e.g., Gibson and Marks 1995) or "Integrated conservation and development projects". (e.g., Abbot and Thomas 2001; Barrett and Arcese, 1995) In some cases, efforts to promote indigenous conservation have led to successful examples of cooperation between local communities and other governing systems (see Orlove and Brush 1996), though Inamdar et al. (1999: 1857) notes that often such efforts are "expensive and have yielded few measurable benefits in terms of either conservation or rural development." Given the complexities arising between these many different systems governing resource use, creating "options and opportunities for action capable of addressing local priorities" (McNeely 1992:20) presents an interesting challenge.

Without community, national, and international participation and cooperation, the decision-making processes that are essential in determining the social and political systems governing the use and conservation of biodiverse regions cannot take place on a fair and equal footing, thus perpetuating the inequities that allow over-exploitation and the degradation of biodiversity to occur.

APPROACHES FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Even though many of the scientific attributes of biodiversity are still open for debate, throughout the world different techniques have been implemented to preserve biodiversity. These approaches tend to be technological, economic, and/or social in nature, often using aforementioned systems of comanagement, NGO intervention, or national/international policy to implement the ideas and maintain sustainability. While some attempts prove futile, many have shown varying degrees of success; we will now briefly discuss some techniques that have proven effective.

Bans: One of the earlier methods of species preservation, bans have demonstrated some success even while only addressing a small part of the issue. Whether the bans are local or global, they are usually social and political in nature (aided by the semi-bounding, semi-enforceable CITES) and have immediate negative economic impacts on those directly affected. However, since they tend to encompass “macro-fauna”, these negative impacts are often mitigated through ecotourism (which potentially lead to sustainable living) or technological advances. The two most visible and successful global bans concerned whaling and ivory. While both experienced numerous problems, from poaching to non-compliance to local economic hardship, the results have been dramatic and the ongoing economic, political, and social implications positive. As Princen (1994: 131) says, “Under conditions of rapid and irreversible decline, a ban may be useful, possibly necessary, in promoting a broader conservation and environmental agenda. Thus, their greatest asset lies in the educational value procured from such an immoderate position, and once human hardship is planned and accounted for, bans may prove (and have actually proven) to be a very effective (though limited as a sustainable development model) species protection tool.

Ecotourism: The ecotourism approach to sustainable development is clearly economically oriented; revenue is generated through tourism to particularly biodiverse areas. Often this strategy takes place in conjunction with protected areas, and tourism can contribute greatly to national revenue. (Inamdar et al. 1999) Tourism can also provide direct incentives for conservation within local communities. However, as Hill and Press (1994) demonstrate, there are hidden costs to the tourism approach - a potentially double-edged sword; while low numbers of tourists do not generate enough income to create conservation incentives or pay tourism-related infrastructure costs, too many tourists can have detrimental effects on local land-use practices and can ultimately threaten the very ecosystems the tourists have come to observe. Thus, ecotourism-based approaches require careful monitoring, full cooperation and consultation with local residents, and attention to short-, medium-, and long-term planning and goals.

Protected areas: Losing biodiversity at an ever-increasing rate, habitat destruction stands out as an immediate and identifiable threat. Thus, by protecting areas of land or water, biodiversity is hopefully conserved. The focus of this technique is to conserve whole ecosystems, rather than individual species, or conversely, to protect individual species by conserving their habitat and thereby all other species within that habitat are afforded protection. There are many political and scientific issues tied up in biodiversity conservation and protected areas, especially concerning which areas to protect and how to best implement a reserve. While the political issues have been discussed throughout, the complexity of site locations includes especially patch size and shape. These refer to the necessary habitat components of individual organisms within the planned protected areas. In order to be successful, these needs must be met, either through a large enough area or a patchwork of areas connected with corridors. The obstacles faced are many, including socio-political, edge effects, viable genetic diversity, etc. However, on the whole, protecting areas of land or water is a common and effective method of habitat and biodiversity preservation. Many NGOs (i.e., RAN, Nature Conservancy) advocate this method and have successfully lobbied locally, nationally, and internationally in many parts of the world. Sometimes these efforts have prioritized conservation to a degree that ignores local or economic needs, though other techniques (ecotourism, bioprospecting) are trying to allay this problem. In general, though, the encompassing nature of habitat preservation, when accompanied by economic incentives, is a valuable tool for maintaining biodiversity health in a sustainable development paradigm.

Bioprospecting: This has been touted as a "sustainable development" solution that may help alleviate the current biodiversity crisis by directly increasing the economic value of intact natural areas. Indeed, humans have been using natural products like plants, animals, fungi, and other organisms for centuries. Originally, humans used mostly raw extracts of plants for medicines, but refinements in technology have increased the scope of uses for organisms to include enzymes, proteins, and genes. While pharmaceuticals are still the primary use, new uses such as biotechnology in agriculture and cosmetics are also becoming economically important. The idea is that the intact biodiversity may eventually generate more income than timber or bush meat because extracts, genes, and products from these organisms may cure disease or confer resistance. Therefore, the main stumbling blocks to bioprospecting as a sustainable development tool are also human in nature. For bioprospecting to succeed as sustainable development, it must reward the companies that do the research and development while also protecting the biodiversity of the region being utilized, benefit the country in question, and respect any indigenous knowledge (and economic rights) of the organisms being used.

CLOSING

When addressing the complexity of biodiversity in sustainable development, one is certainly not fixed into definitions and parameters. Both topics require multitudes of research and investigation into their scientific, social, political, economic, and aesthetic implications, recognizing that this may be unique to each species, location, and situation. However, even given this sort of issue-specific complexity, there exists throughout the world examples of the successful integration of these factors in sustainable, biodiverse programs. This is not to say that sustainable development and biodiversity preservation are always attainable. On the contrary, James et al. (1999) assert that the obstacle to progress in maintaining biodiversity is the lack of political will to change patterns of government policy and expenditure. This political will, accompanied by economic, social, and ethical adjustments, must come from all facets of society and, through local, regional, and international cooperation between indigenous folk and political/business leaders alike, be a catalyst for change in the policies governing the use and conservation of the biodiversity now encompassing our dynamic world.

REFERENCES

Abbot, Joanne and David Thomas. 2001. Understanding the Links Between Conservation and Development in the Bamenda Highlands, Cameroon. World Development 29: 1115-1136.

Barrett, Christopher B. and Peter Arcese. 1995. Are Integrated Conservation-Development Projects (ICDPs) Sustainable? On the Conservation of Large Mammals in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Development 23(7): 1073-1084.

Conklin, Beth A. and Laura R. Graham. 1995. The Shifting Middle Ground: Amazonian Indians and Eco-Politics. American Anthropologist 97(4): 695-710.

Gibson, Clark C. and Stuart A. Marks. 1995. Transforming Rural Hunters into Conservationists: An Assessment of Community-Based Wildlife Management Programs in Africa. World Development 23(6): 941-957.

Hardin, G. 1988. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science: 1243-1248.

Hill, M. and A. Press. 1994. Kakadu National Park: An Australian experience in comanagement. In Western, David and R. Michael Wright, eds., Natural connections: Perspectives on community-based conservation. Covelo, CA: Island Press: 135-157.

Inamdar, A., de Jode, H., Lindsay, K. and S. Cobb. 1999. Capitalizing on Nature: Protected Area Management. Science 283: 1856-1857.

James, Alexander, Kevin Gaston and Andrew Balmford. 1999. Balancing the Earth’s accounts. Nature 401: 323-324.

Krebs, Charles J. 1994. Ecology (4th Edition). Harper Colliins Pub: 514 541.

Macilwain, C. 1998. When rhetoric hits reality in debate on bioprospecting. Nature 392:535-540.

McNeely, Jeffrey A. 1992. The Biodiversity Crisis: Challenges for Research and Management. In Sandlund, O.T., K. Hindar and A.H.D. Brown, eds. Conservation of Biodiversity for Sustainable Development. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget: 15-26.

McNeely, Jeffrey A. 1994. Protected areas for the 21st century: working to provide benefits to society. Biodiversity and Conservation 3: 390-405.

Orlove, Benjamin S and Stephen Brush 1996. Anthropology and the conservation of biodiversity. Annual Review of Anthropology 25: 329-352.

Orlove, Benjamin S. 1991. Mapping reeds and reading maps: the politics of representation in Lake Titicaca. American Ethnologist 18(1): 3-38.

Perrings C (2001) The Economics of Biodiversity Loss and Agricultural Development in Low Income Countries. In Lee D.R., and Barret C.B. eds. Tradeoffs or Synergies? Agricultural Intensification, Economic Development and the Environment. Wallingford and New York, CAB International: 57-72.

Princen, Thomas. 1994. The ivory trade ban: NGOs and international conservation. In Princen, Thomas and Matthias Finger. Environmental NGOs in world politics: linking the local and the global. London: Routledge: 121-159.

Service, R.F. 2001. Microbiologists Explore Life¹s Rich, Hidden Kingdoms. Biodiversity. v275: 5307.

Wilson, E.O. Public Talk at Cody¹s Books. Berkely, CA. 2/20/02.