From gbarry@forests.org Sat Aug 30 19:29:59 2003
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:42:58 -0500
From: Glen Barry
To: gbarry@forests.org
Subject: FORESTS: Biodiversity Coldspots: Ecological Sufficiency,
Not Expediency
***********************************************
FOREST CONSERVATION NEWS TODAY
Biodiversity Coldspots: Ecological Sufficiency, Not Expediency
***********************************************
Forest Networking a Project of Forests.org, Inc.
http://forests.org/ -- Forest Conservation Portal
http://www.EnvironmentalSustainability.info/ -- Eco-Portal
http://www.ClimateArk.org/ -- Climate Change Portal
http://www.WaterConserve.info/ -- Water Conservation Portal
July 3, 2003
OVERVIEW & COMMENTARY by Forests.org
Conserving Biodiversity Coldspots, American Scientist, Volume 91,
2003, by Peter Kareiva and Michelle Marvier.
The desirability of targeting conservation spending towards
biodiversity hotspots, to the degree presently occurring, is
seriously questioned in the current issue of the journal American
Scientist. Biodiversity hotpots are regions that have high
concentrations of endemic species (species found nowhere else)
and have already suffered a high degree of habitat destruction.
This is a VERY important article. In a measured, scientific
manner the authors raise issues of profound importance for
prospects of achieving biodiversity protection and global
ecological sustainability.
More and more scientists and advocates are warning that directing
conservation funds nearly exclusively to hotspots is "bad
investment advice" and "may be a recipe for major losses in the
future". This is particularly true as "the hot-spot concept has
grown so popular in recent years within the larger conservation
community that it now risks eclipsing all other approaches". I
and other ecological contrarians have raised this issue many
times in our writings over past years.
Targeting conservation towards the 1.4% of the Earth's land which
holds nearly half of the World's vascular plant species has
become highly in vogue in recent years. Groups as diverse as the
World Bank and Conservation International have championed the
approach. The other big conservation players such as The Nature
Conservancy and WWF implicitly favor this approach through
placement of their offices and their prioritization processes.
Conservation International alone has reaped hundreds of millions
of dollars in donations to pursue the approach. Yet the hotspot
concept has largely not been critically examined.
Conservation in the broad sense is not well-served by focusing
too exclusively on biodiversity to the detriment of ecosystem
functionality and other measures of ecological importance. What
is to happen to the other 98.6% of the Earth's land mass?
These non-hotspot areas are referred to as "Biodiversity
Coldspots" in the article. Many biodiversity coldspots provide
crucial global and local ecosystem processes, contain unique
evolutionary lineages and rare species, encompass the last major
wilderness landscapes, provide habitat for wide-ranging animal
species, and may have national policy environments more conducive
to conservation success. And all coldspots would benefit from
higher levels of protection, conservation management and
restoration.
The article summarizes the conundrum nicely: "If we measure
success simply by tallying up total species protected, we risk
the folly of allowing major ecosystems to degrade beyond repair
simply because they do not provide lengthy species lists". Such
an approach "could well bring on an unfortunate side effect: more
degradation of global ecosystems than would take place if a more
broadly based strategy were used". And my favorite quotation
from the article: "How much of a victory would it actually be if
people did manage to conserve only the 1.4 percent of the Earth's
land surface... The reality is people must make conservation
progress everywhere".
The biodiversity hotspots concept was initially intended largely
as a temporary triage measure, and does have merit in this
regard. But it has inaccurately become the accepted primary
paradigmatic solution to the "biodiversity crisis" - a classic
example of failing to see the forests through the trees. It is a
feel good strategy that secures lots of money for the big
corporate NGOs, and provides environmental cover for the World
Bank's general environmental neglect. Indeed, foundations,
international agencies and NGOs "have been seduced by the
simplicity of the hotspot idea".
Sure, conservation prioritization schemes are necessary. But not
at the expense of feel-good solutions that do not achieve the
ultimate conservation goals of global ecological sustainability
and lasting improvements in the human condition. It is noted in
the review of the article below that "even if people succeeded in
preserving a single viable population of every species on
earth... the human race would die out unless it managed to
protect the ecosystems that support broader populations of
plants, animals and people too."
Conservation leaders are sending the wrong message at the wrong
time because it is less threatening to entrenched political,
economic and social interests than the truth. Biodiversity
hotspots as THE conservation strategy is as far as the big boys
think they can go without rocking the boat. Society can continue
consuming for consumption's sake, remaining large primary forests
can be plundered, and disparities in social justice and economic
conditions are not an environmental issue. For how much longer
can conservation solutions be proposed that are inadequate to the
task at hand?
The global ecological situation is such that the Planet, humanity
and all its occupants are imminently threatened. The major
challenge facing conservation is not "saving" some species rich
remnants as non-viable museum like eco-relicts of the past. In
addition to more focus upon protecting, conserving and restoring
spatially extensive forest and other terrestrial ecosystems, we
must set out to 1) increase the scale of conservation funding
exponentially, 2) communicate accurately and urgently the need to
pursue policies that are sufficient rather than expedient, and 3)
build political resolve to do so. Together these priorities
should 4) seek to foster and bolster an ecological ethic in all,
build recognition of the living Earth, and emphasize the oneness
of the human family.
The World is in a period of self-denial. Perhaps the greatest
challenge facing conservation is development of persuasive
communication techniques adequate to illuminate the importance of
biological and ecological processes to our lives, while there is
still time for ambitious remedial policy options, and before the
global ecological system collapses. I and many thousand of other
small NGOs and individuals remain committed to investigating and
expounding upon what is sufficient for ecological and species
sustainability, rather than what is expedient or sells well.
g.b.
P.S. Speaking of selling ;-) many small donations have been
received totaling nearly $2,000 - some one-third of our goal in
order to maintain operations. As Forests.org's modest efforts
continue to reach hundreds of thousands of people a month, one
can only wonder how far that would go towards conventional
methods to conserve hotspots. Do you value independent, free-
thinking sources of information and commentary on the environment
and movement for its conservation? Then please help us
successfully raise funds for the next six months of operations at
http://forests.org/donate/ . Thank you very much for your
continued support.
*******************************
RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:
Title: Few Habitats, Many Species and a Debate on Preservation
Source: Copyright 2003, New York Times
Date: July 1, 2003
Byline: JON CHRISTENSEN
Conservationists call them hot spots - habitats that cover just
1.4 percent of the earth's land surface but are so rich in
biological diversity that preserving them could keep an
astonishing number of plant and animal species off the endangered
list.
Since 1988, when Dr. Norman Myers and his colleagues began
describing these hot spots in a series of scientific papers and
arguing for their protection, they have become a focus of
worldwide conservation efforts. Private organizations and
government agencies, including the World Bank, have made
preserving 25 such ecological arks - from the Atlantic rain
forest of Brazil to the semiarid Karoo region of South Africa -
a top priority for financing and protective legislation.
But a growing chorus of scientists is warning that directing
conservation funds to hot spots may be a recipe for major losses
in the future. Just as an investor should maintain a balanced
portfolio, the scientists argue, conservationists should avoid
putting all of their eggs in one basket.
Hot spots are top performers in one dimension, these scientists
say: the number of unique species that live in them. Of species
that live on land, nearly half of all plants and more than a
third of all animals are found only in the hot spots. But they do
not include many rare species and major animal groups that live
in less biologically rich regions ("cold spots").
And the hot-spot concept does not factor in the importance of
some ecosystems to human beings, the scientists argue. Wetlands,
for example, contain just a few species of plants, but they
perform valuable service by filtering water, regulating floods
and serving as nurseries for fish.
This debate has been simmering quietly among biologists for
years. But it is coming to a boil now with the publication of an
article in the current issue of American Scientist arguing that
"calls to direct conservation funding to the world's biodiversity
hot spots may be bad investment advice."
"The hot-spot concept has grown so popular in recent years within
the larger conservation community that it now risks eclipsing all
other approaches," write the authors of the paper, Dr. Michelle
Marvier, a professor of biology at Santa Clara University, and
Dr. Peter Kareiva, an associate at the university and a scientist
with the Nature Conservancy, a group that has increasingly
focused on hot spots.
"The officers and directors of all too many foundations,
nongovernmental organizations and international agencies have
been seduced by the simplicity of the hot spot idea," they go on.
"We worry that the initially appealing idea of getting the most
species per unit area is, in fact, a thoroughly misleading
strategy."
Other prominent ecologists have grown critical of hot spots.
"Focusing all of our attention on hot spots is just nuts," said
Dr. Paul Ehrlich, president of the Center for Conservation
Biology at Stanford University.
"The hot-spot approach was a good one when it was proposed by
Myers way back when," Dr. Ehrlich said. "It attracted important
attention to the distribution of species diversity. Now it's
clear that saving a few percent of the earth's surface to
preserve species will not accomplish what needs to be
accomplished."
Even if people succeeded in preserving a single viable population
of every species on earth, he said, the human race would die out
unless it managed to protect the ecosystems that support broader
populations of plants, animals and people too.
"One has to balance the necessary attempts to preserve species
diversity with what may be much more important," he said of "the
preserving of population diversity and in the process the
preserving of ecosystem services."
But hot spots have their ardent defenders, notably Dr. Myers, a
fellow at Oxford University, and Dr. Russell Mittermeier,
president of Conservation International, a nonprofit organization
that has made hot spots the centerpiece of its global strategy.
Dr. Mittermeier says hot spots have been successful at attracting
attention and financing for conservation in tropical countries.
"And that has been good," he said. "No one is suggesting that one
invest solely in hot spots, but if you want to avoid extinctions,
you have to invest in them."
By definition, hot spots contain many species that exist nowhere
else on earth and that are under threat because more than 70
percent of their habitat has been destroyed. Conservation
International is still working on expanding the hot spots list,
Dr. Mittermeier said, with 10 new ones to be announced later this
year.
And the organization puts a high priority on protecting five vast
wilderness areas that have many unique species and are still
relatively intact. They include the world's largest tropical rain
forests, the Amazon, the Congo forests of central Africa and the
island of New Guinea, as well as the Miombo-Mopane grasslands and
woodlands of southern Africa, and the deserts of northern Mexico
and the American Southwest. These areas still have more than 75
percent of their natural habitat and fewer than 13 people per
square mile, said Dr. Mittermeier, but they will become hot spots
if they are not protected.
Dr. Myers said that since he wrote his first paper on hot spots,
$750 million had been committed to protecting them, including a
$261 million donation to Conservation International from the
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the largest single gift ever
to an environmental organization. Still, he said, the hot spots
need more attention and more money - "a lot more," he said.
Dr. Agnes Kiss, an environment specialist with the World Bank,
acknowledges that when it comes to spending money on
conservation, hot spots loom large. "Put it this way," she said.
"When we're trying to justify a project, if it's a hot spot,
basically it's a shoo-in."
The World Bank and its Global Environment Facility, which makes
grants in addition to the bank's traditional loans, is halfway
through a five-year $125 million Critical Ecosystems Partnership
Fund to invest in protecting hot spots, along with the MacArthur
Foundation, the Japanese government and Conservation
International.
Still, Dr. Kiss said, the bank also takes other factors into
account, including the commitment of governments and local
communities to preserve biodiversity and their track records with
previous projects.
In a world where funds are limited, that is just the kind of
approach that is needed, Dr. Marvier and Dr. Kareiva assert in
their American Scientist article. In a coming paper in Ecology
Letters, written with their student at Santa Clara University,
Casey O'Connor, they propose a "return on investment" model to
determine which countries provide the best opportunities for
preserving biodiversity. Their analysis compares the feasibility
and cost-effectiveness of conservation efforts in different
countries, alongside biological diversity and the threat of
habitat destruction.
When factors like the costs of doing business, the reliability of
governments and pressure from population growth are taken into
account, they write, some countries on Conservation
International's list of the 17 most "megadiverse" countries -
Colombia, Ecuador, Indonesia, and Venezuela, for example - drop
off the priority list.
And some other countries not found on the list emerge as
priorities, including Argentina, Bangladesh, Mozambique and
Vietnam.Still others appear on every list, no matter which
priority-setting model is used: China, India, Madagascar, Papua
New Guinea and South Africa.
Dr. Marvier and Dr. Kareiva say the largest conservation
organizations - the Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund
and Conservation International - have many offices concentrated
in countries with hot spots, but are understaffed in countries
with vast biological resources, like Argentina and Russia.
Since no one strategy is enough, they argue, conservationists
need a way to make explicit trade-offs. Preserving 1,000 species
in a "cold spot" like Montana, they argue, would be more
important than preserving 1,000 species in a hot spot like
Ecuador because in Montana 1,000 species represents a third of
the total, while in Ecuador it represents just 5 percent.
"Conservationists widely accept the need for some sort of
triage," they argue, "whereby limited funds go to places where
the greatest good can be done."
Dr. Kareiva acknowledged that there would never be one magic
equation everyone would accept. "But we can all get more
sophisticated by focusing on different variables," he said.
Biological diversity, he said, "should be one variable in the
equation; it shouldn't be the end-all or be-all."
Dr. Kiss, the World Bank environmental specialist, agreed. "The
basic principle that biology isn't everything is quite sound,"
she said. But Dr. Mittermeier of Conservation International
worries that focusing on "return on investment" could lead to bad
decisions in the long run. Colombia, for example, demands
conservationists' attention despite the uncertainties raised by
its guerrilla war, he said, adding, "If a country is rich in
diversity it's very dangerous to write it off because of
temporary difficulties."
Dr. Thomas Lovejoy, president of the H. John Heinz Center for
Science, Economics and the Environment in Washington, called the
debate "useful, but somewhat academic."
"The real issue here is not the sort of fine-tuning of what is
the best way to set priorities from organization to organization.
It's about changing the scale of the funding," he said. "In the
real world, there is a real need for a diversity of approaches in
the field of conservation."
Hot-spots research "highlighted that there are certain places
where the fire engines ought to go right away," Dr. Lovejoy said,
"whereas other places under less pressure can wait a few years,
if you have to do them in sequence."
"But you'd better not wait too long," he added.
###RELAYED TEXT ENDS###
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving forest conservation informational materials
for educational, personal and non-commercial use only.
Recipients should seek permission from the source to reprint this
PHOTOCOPY. All efforts are made to provide accurate, timely
pieces, though ultimate responsibility for verifying all
information rests with the reader. For additional forest
conservation news & information please see the Forest
Conservation Portal at URL= http://forests.org/
Networked by Forests.org, Inc., gbarry@forests.org