onserving biodiversiexcessive resource consumption, popW A T E R V, R E I D dation growth, economic inequities, ty-the Earth’s sum of genes, species, and ecointernational trade patterns, institusystems-has become institute tional conflicts, and international woshin@on’ Dc 2ooo6 an urgent issue. In less debt. Not surprisingly, no “silverbullet” solution like banning ozonethan a decade. it has evolved from a technical concept disdestroying chemicals exists for the biodiversit; crisis. cussed only in scientific circles to an isBiotic impoverishment sue widely featured in the popular media and debated Species are now dying out as fast as at any time since in political arenas. For the past year, negotiating teams the mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous, some from more than 100 countries have been hammering 65 million years ago ( 1 , Z ) . Tropical deforestation is the out an international accord on biodiversity to be signed crucible of today’s extinction crisis. About 17 million at the June United Nations Conference on Environment hectares of tropical forestsarea the size of Washand Development (UNCFD) in N o de Janeiro. ington state-are cleared annually. Scientists estimate The discovery of the “ozone hole” over Antarctica is that, at this rate, at least 5-10% of tropical forest spethe only other piece of environmental news to have cies face extinction in the next 30 years (see Figure 1). spurred such urgent and widespread response. But Tropical species are by no means the only ones at ozone depletion is in many ways an easier problem to risk. Temperate rain forest-which once covered an get people concerned about-and to solve. It can be area nearly the size of Montana-has shrunk as much as readily measured, it is “visible” through satellite imagtropical forest has. Even where vast stands of temperate ery, and its human consequences are well documented. forest remain, much species-rich old-growth forest has Its causes are few and unambiguous, so it’s clear what been replaced by second-growth forest and plantations. must be done. And sparing the ozone layer requires relatively small changes in a limited number of industries Such other habitats as wetlands and mangrove swamps, US. tall grass prairies, and Central America’s dry forand a relatively small amount of funding to help the deests also have been reduced to mere remnants. velouina world make the transition to more ozoneThe list of named species at risk is swelling. Some frieidl y-chemicals. 633 species are listed as being in danger of extinction in The contrast with biodiversitv could hardlv be the United States alone, and more than 3000 other spesharper. Scientists know that a ra$d loss of spekes is cies have been proposed for listing. In the past several under way, but they cannot directly measure the rate of hundred years, 80 species are believed to have become loss. Indeed, they do not know even to the nearest order extinct in the continental United States and Hawaii, of magnitude how many species exist. The loss of geand a further 210 species are likely to be extinct. One netic and habitat diversity cannot be precisely meathird of North America’s freshwater fish are rare, threatsured, and its impacts on development prospects are often indirect and always hard to quantify. Its root ened or endangered. Worldwide, more than 700 extinctions of vertebrates, invertebrates, and vascular plants causes are as complex and diverse as humanity itself:
logo Environ. Sci. Technol.. VoI. 26, No. 6, 1992
0013-936)(192/0926-1090$03.00/00 1992 American Chemical Society
1
I
‘I
-
’
- 41 current deforestation rate D50%Increase in deforestation rate
have been recorded since 1600 (3). Genetic diversity-distinct variations within s p e c i e d s o is diminishing, as unique populations of wild species die out and variations within domesticated plant and animal species dwindle. In Indonesia, 1500 local rice varieties have become extinct in the past 15 years. Worldwide, some 492 genetically distinct populations of tree species are endangered. In the northwestern United States, 159 genetically distinct populations of anadromous fish are at risk of extinction. The loss of species and ecosystems exacts a high price. The water we drink, the air we breathe, our fertile soils, and our productive seas are all products of healthy biological systems. We face considerable risks in causing the extinction of species whose role in ecosystems we do not yet understand, and we rob future generations of the benefits they could reap from Earth‘s biotic wealth. The loss of ecosystems-for instance, wetlands, which provide such critical ecological services as flood control, fish production, and pollutant assimilation-is a direct economic cost as well as a threat to species survival. Loss of biodiversity also destroys opportunities for recreation and nature tourism-businesses now worth as much as $12 billion a year worldwide. Declining genetic diversity in agriculture is costly as well. In 1991, the genetic similarity of Brazil’s orange trees opened the way for the worst outbreak of citrus canker ever recorded in the country. In 1970, U.S. farmers lost $1billion to e disease that swept through uniformly
susceptible corn varieties. Similarly, the Irish potato famine in 1846, the Soviet wheat crop loss in 1972, and the citrus canker outbreak i n Florida i n 1 9 8 4 a l l stemmed from reductions in genetic diversity. Underlying the many practical reasons for ~ ~ n s e r v i nbiodiversity g are ethical imperatives. What right do we have to ley waste the profusion of living things evolved over eons? And how will our own species fare if we continue doing so? Harvard biologist E. 0. Wilson puts the case most eloquently, calling the loss of biodiversity “the folly our descendants are least likely to forgive us.”
Encouraginesigns Rising monetary stakes. The rapid decline of biodiversity has been clear to scientists for decades, so why the sudden worldwide interest in tackling the problem? Advances in biotechnology are one spur to today’s new-found urgency. Simply put, these advances raise the monetary stakes because any species can now be “raw material” for genetic engineering. Pharmaceutical companies are once again interested in natural products research, after slacking off in the late 1970s when chemical synthesis and “rational drug design” emerged as the techniques of choice. By speeding the chemical screening process that undergirds development of new drugs, biotechnology has made screening natural products a lowcost, but potentially lucrative, activity. Moreover, when a promising chemical is found, large quantities of it can be produced by transferring
1092 Envimn. Sci. Technol., Vol. 26. No. 6, IS32
the proper genes to bacterial “hosts.” Pharmaceutical companies have also come to realize that even their most creative chemists may be no match for nature. Two of the most promising new drugs in clinical trials were derived from plants: the anticancer drug taxol derived from the Pacific yew and an antimalarial drug derived from a Chinese herb known as Qinghaosu. Biotechnology has increased biodiversity’s value to agriculture too. Genes for pesticide resistance are now being transferred from bacteria to plants. The distant relatives of modern crops-once considered useless for breeding purposescontain unique traits that can now be bred into elite varieties within a matter of years. Biotechnology makes it possible to quickly tailor crop varieties to local soil, climate, or rainfall conditions so they can meet the needs of marginal farmers. Customized crops also could be critical to protecting the world’s food supply i f severe global warming and ozone depldtion forecasts are borne out over coming decades. As the value of genetic resources grows, so do incentives to conserve biodiversity. This link is nowhere better reflected than in the work of the National Biodiversity Institute PNBio) in Costa Rica. Established in 1989, INBio is a private, nonprofit institution whose goal is to promote the wise management and use of Costa Rica’s biological wealth through developing and distributing idormation on species, genes, and ecosystems. It has launched a complete inventory of the country’s species and collaborated with local universities to establish chemical screening facilities. INBio recently announced a $1 million agreement with Merck & Company, the world‘s largest pharmaceutical company, under which the institute will provide Merck with plant and animal e m c t s for screening in return for a share of the royalties from any drugs developed. INBio will then invest any revenues beyond its operating costs in conservation activities in Costa Rica. Genetic resources have traditionally been treated as though they were a common heritage of humankind-free to all who could use them. The growing importance of biotechnology has forced a reassessment of the ownership issue. Nations should assert national sovereignty over genetic resources, regulate collection, and decide whether to adopt intellectual prop-
erty rights protection for knowledge about these resources. Ownership is a question not just of nations, but of communities as well, If traditional healers had the economic clout of large multinational corporations, then their intellectual contribution to pharmaceutical development would certainly be respected. This issue will take decades to sort out, but the first step must be recognizing farmers’ and medicinal healers’ right to control access to their own expert knowledge and to genetic resources. Only then can local communities have much influence over the form and amount of compensation owed. Grassroots vigor. Grassroots action in the developing world is another new reality that has pushed
are supplanting them. Fishing communities in the Philippines have reestablished resource management systems to stop overfishing and have created sanctuaries to maintain fish-breeding habitats. In Peru, indigenous groups have developed biologically diverse farming systems that restore degraded lands to productivity and maintain sustainable agricultural production. In Brazil, rubber tappers have forced the establishment of “extractive reserves” that simultaneously meet their economic needs and conserve much of the forest’s biodiversity. Throughout the developing world, rural people are well ahead of their governments in recognizing the importance of biodiversityand in taking action to safeguard its
biodiversity conservation onto national and international agendas. In many of these countries, biodiversity is being conserved in spite of government policies, not because of them. For years, the conventional wisdom in environment and development circles was that local communities cannot afford to manage biological resources sustainably. National governments, in turn, have maintained that they need economic development so desperately that they can’t afford the luxury of protecting their biotic wealth. Energetic community efforts to maintain natural variety so that it can meet immediate needs belie these assertions. In Kenya and Indonesia, farmers’ organizations have established community seed banks to preserve traditional crop varieties, many of which are agronomically sounder, more nutritious, or tastier than the new varieties that
survival. To be sure, local efforts to improve agriculture, fishery, and forestry practices must be augmented by improved national policies. But grassroots efforts demonstrate that biodiversity conservation is not a luxury, but a necessity for generations now living, as well as those to come. Scientific support. The “crisis discipline” of conservation biology has emerged in a single decade-the Society for Conservation Biology now rivals the Ecological Society of America in size-reflecting growing interest in the problem and in the applicability of scientific advances for crafting solutions. In the past few years, scientists have refined their estimates of how fast species are dying out, while discovering that many more species exist than they had ever imagined. Scientists have also begun to focus on the management of rare or endangered
species. Such tools as Population Viability Analysis now provide a powerful means of managing populations to ensure that species survive. Another boon to maintaining ecosystems and species is the growing understanding of community and ecosystem ecology, which aids in restoring degraded habitats and in establishing habitat corridors to link protected areas. A new conservation framework A decade ago, biodiversity conservation would have been limited to saving genes, species, and habitats. But now a new conservation framework has emerged, based on saving biodiversity, studying it, and using it sustainably and equitably (see Figure 2). The steps needed go far beyond maintaining protected areas and seed banks to include reforming agricultural, forestry, and technological policies and revamping international trade agreements and watershed management (see Figure 3). Within this framework, countries at all levels of development-as well as scientists, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector-can see the relevance of biodiversity to their own needs and the synergy possible by linking seemingly disparate activities related to biodiversity conservation and use. For example, taxonomic research had been a dying science for decades, despite many eloquent calls for more funding for this vital underpinning of the biological sciences. But under the biodiversity conservation rubric of “save, study, and use,” taxonomic research is regaining the attention of governments and funding agencies. How can a country benefit from biodiversity if it doesn’t even know what species live within its borders? Similarly, the economic development potential of natural assets has made converts of developing countries that were once skeptical about the wisdom of setting aside protected areas in the face of pressing development needs. This point was d r i v e n home by a Kenyan researcher: “We recently told a senior Kenyan government official that biodiversity was more important to Kenya than diamonds were to South Africa. We got an appointment to see him that afternoon!”
Four-front international response Biodiversity conservation is gaining ground precisely because the issue is so broad that it can encom-
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 26,No. 6 , 1992 1093
A. Slowing the lass of biodiversity requires reater understanding of its role in ecosystems and its importance for human 1%. Conversely, to increase erstanding of biodiversity, representative and viable samples of ecosystems. species. and populations must be maintained. E. Greater incentives wlll exist to slow the loss of biodiversity if its immediate walue to human3 is increased. Conversely. the many current and potential benefits that bi iversity can provide to humanity cannot be sustained unless the biological resource base is maintained. C. Developin sustainable uses of biodiversity requires the application ol both pitional at-$ modern know1 e of biodiversity and biological resources. rsely, users’ needs shoul ”$ help set biodiversity research priorities. ~
pass the interests of many different countries. For instance, although developed countries may have sought an international accord on biodiversity simply to slow the rate of species extinctions, developing countries immediately saw the chance to strengthen their biotechnical capacities by adding technology cooperation provisions to such an agreement. Similarly, while some countries restricted the definition of biodiversity to wild species, others considered conserving the genetic diversity of domesticated species at least as important and added it to the agenda. From a scientific standpoint too. the breadth of the concept provides a wide stage for effective action. Species-focused conservation efforts are essential, but they must be complemented by efforts to conserve habitats and ecosystems in natural or seminatural states. Indeed, separate international conser-
vation agreements on species, genes, and ecosystems tend to raise barriers that get in the way of the integrated approaches needed. Moreover, conserving genetic diversity is often key to maintaining the viability of species’ populations; diversity is also useful in pest management and agricultural breeding programs. Four major moves are afoot to shape an international response to the loss of biodiversity that will complement actions already under way at local and national levels. First, in response to the clear need for more conservation funding in developing countries, the World Bank, the United Nations Development Program, and the United Nations Environment Programme ( W P ) established the Global Environmental Facility in 1990 on a three-year pilot basis. The GEF is expected to commit up to $400 million for projects to conserve biodi-
1094 Environ. Sci. Technol.. Vol. 26, No. 6, 1992
versity during this period. As a high-profile experiment, the GEF should be closely monitored to determine whether or not it is an appropriate model. Already, questions have been raised about the lack of broad participation in project development, limited access to information about projects, bias toward large projects runby central governments, and concentration of control over funds by both the World Bank and donor country governments. Overcoming these problems will be the key test of whether GEF emerges as a viable model for managing international funding for biodiversity conservation in developing countries. Second, the international Biodiversity Strategy Program (organized by the World Resources Institute, the World Conservation Union, and UNEP and involving more than 40 governmental and nongovernmental organizations from around the world] released the Global Biodiversity Strategy in February 1992. The product of a worldwide series of workshops and consultations, this document lays out an agenda for actions to be taken internationally, nationally, and locally to slow and ultimately stop the loss of biodiversity and mobilize its benefits to meet human needs sustainably and equitably. Many of the actions recommended by the strategy are already beginning to be implemented by governments and nongovernmental organizations. Third, under UNEP’s auspices, more than 100 nations are working to negotiate a Convention on Biological Diversity in time to be signed at the Earth Summit. This convention seeks to establish a legal framework governing international financial support for biodiversity conservation, the identification of international conservation priorities, and the transfer of technologies for both the conservation and the use of biodiversity. Because of the complexity of the issues, the convention to be signed at Rio de Janeiro will be a “framework” agreement, with outstanding issues to be resolved through further negotiation and added to the convention as protocols. Finally, the Earth Summit will produce “Agenda 21,” a plan for action on a number of issues, including biodiversity. Developed through a series of intergovernmental preparatory meetings-with input from a variety of nongovernmental processes, including the Biodiversity
where are increasingly faced with the direct costs of the loss of genes, species, and ecosystems. This transformation in attitudes is being furthered by the recognition of the benefits that could have been obtained from intact biota. Conserving nature’s variety is thus increasingly being recognized as essential to economic development. Promising moves are under way to slow the loss of biodiversity and mobilize its benefits for human well-being. Yet, biological impoverishment is driven by powerful forces that cannot be easily changed. Many of today’s positive initiatives may turn out to be only stopgap measures unless advances are made in dealing with overconsumption of resources, population growth, misguided resource management policies, and social and economic inequities. The need to conserve our planet’s biological wealth gives nations even more impetus to solve these knotty problems. At the same time, sustaining biodiversity may help provide the means for crafting solutions.
rArxl FIGURE 3
The scope of biodiversity conservation
Human rights
Rekences Reid, W. V. In Whitmore, T.;Sayer. J., E&.: Tropical Deforestation and Species Extinction; Chapman and Hall: London, lW2. (2) Erlich, P. R.: Wilson, E. 0. Science (1)
1891,153,758-82. 131 Reid, W. V.:Miller, K.R Keeping Op-
tions Alive: The Scientific Bosis for Consening Biodiversity; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, 1989. (4) World Resources Institute; World
Conservation Union; United Nations Environment Progarrune:GI& BiodiversiiyStmtegy:Global Biodiversity Institute: Washington, DC, 1992.
International
Strategy Program-Agenda 21 will detail actions that signatories will pledge to undertake. finlike the biodiversitv convention. Aeenda 21 is not legdly binding, but will make the need for action visible and provide some standard of accountabil-
ity for governments i n coming years.
conclusion Attitudes toward the diversity of life are undergoing a belated but inevitable change as people every-
Walter V. Reid, an ecologist, is o vicepresident of the World Resources Instihrte in Washington, DC, a center forpolicy reseorch on global resource and environmental issues. He is one of the principal authors of the Global Biodiversity Strategy. His Ph.D. in zoology with speciolization in ecology and evolutionary biology is from the University of Washjngion-Seaffle.
Envimn. sd.Technol., VoI. 26, No. 6, 1982 1085
