Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to REPELLING INVADERS AND OTHER CHALLENGES FOR THE CHARLES DARWIN FOUNDATION AND THE GALAPAGOS NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY: WHERE NEXT?

BY JOHN H. LAWTON

Conservation biology is unquestionably, now, a mature science. We should celebrate this. But despite scientific success, the war to conserve biodiversity is not going well. We win some battles, but the overall trend is undeniably downwards. I want to ask why. In part, the answer lies in too few resources to realize our potential. However, more of the same but better funded' is not going to be enough. In a rapidly changing world, conservation biology is a necessary, but not a sufficient solution to the looming biodiversity crisis. Some of the solutions lie in a bigger scientific agenda--the Earth System Science agenda. The new conservation science is much bigger than biology. And other parts of the solution--by which I mean winning the war--have more to do with the law, economics, politics, world trade, and the whole sustainability agenda, than with conservation biology as such.

Let me start on familiar territory. The science of conservation biology has been remarkably successful, both in establishing general principles underpinning effective conservation, and in developing and implementing species recovery programs. For instance, theory and practice tell us that reserves/ protected areas should be as big as possible, as close together as possible or connected by corridors, and embedded in a matrix that is as benign as possible. We also have sophisticated site-selection algorithms that can give us best value for money,' the most species at lowest cost, or what have you. We know reasonably well where the world's biodiversity hot spots are, and so in principle know where to concentrate conservation efforts if the politics allows. And, for the tiny proportion of the world's species lucky enough to get the gold-plated treatment, species recovery programs work, again underpinned by highly sophisticated science (autecological studies, MVP analyses, the genetics of inbreeding, and so forth).

In other words, our science is undeniably capable of delivering highly effective conservation. That in general it is not doing so in many parts of the world says that something else is going wrong.

In part the problem is one of money. Species recovery programs are expensive. Restoring bittern populations in Britain by investing in an intensive program of research, habitat restoration, and recreation is scheduled to cost of the order of £8m ($12m) over 15 years(1). So would more money help? Yes is the simple answer. US conservation biologists struggling to deliver species recovery programs receive on average approximately 20% of the funding they say they need to do the job properly. More importantly, analysis shows that the status of endangered species improves steadily the bigger the proportion of requested funds actually allocated(2).

So can we simply invest more money in conservation science, sit back, and watch the Garden of Eden return? Unfortunately not. The forces of darkness and ignorance are not so easily diverted. More money for conservation biology will help, but it is only part of the solution, not the whole solution. I do not pretend I know all, or even many of the answers. But I do see the problems.

Many conservation issues are not just about biology. Tricky legal problems abound, not least designating protected areas for species that aren't there yet' (but which we expect to arrive, for example, through deliberate reintroduction, or migration in response to climate change). It is currently illegal in many countries to introduce species outside their natural range. Climate change will make a mockery of such legislation. Thinking heretically, for species left with nowhere to go because of climate change or habitat destruction, does introduction back into the wild necessarily have to be on their home continent? The purists will hate it, but the concept of a home continent' for many taxa is meaningless over time scales of millennia. Yet the law is totally unable to provide answers to how we manage these situations. The problems are not just biological. To solve them we will have to engage with lawyers.

Effective conservation also increasingly demands that biologists understand the rules of international trade. The World Trade Organization and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) are not things we normally think about but (as a recent review points out)(3) to win the war, "population biologists [need] to familiarize themselves with the theory and practice of international trade, and its interactions with the environment."

We also have to see a bigger scientific picture that extends beyond the traditional boundaries of conservation biology to take an Earth System Science perspective(4). With possibly 20-30% of all species globally threatened it is easy to lose sight of the big picture, which is as simple as it is depressing. Every year, human beings now take for our own direct or indirect use 40% of all terrestrial plant growth, one third to one quarter of all marine primary production, and 60% of all readily accessible fresh water(5), and this take' is growing exponentially. Is it any wonder there is an extinction crisis?

The political message has to be loud and clear. This is unsustainable, and the solutions are primarily social and economic, not biological. We need a huge effort to deliver a sustainable future that massively reduces our impact on the planet without the lights going out. It can be done. Much of the technology and know-how exists(6). What is lacking is the political will, and public acceptance in the developed, wealthy world that there is a problem.

Finally, the biggest challenge of all is that we live in a world in which the gap between the minority of haves' and the majority of have nots' is growing ever wider. We live in a desperately unfair, unequal world. Effective conservation is impossible in the face of grinding human poverty on the one hand, and blinding human greed on the other. More effective conservation of Earth's biological riches will not happen without sustainable development, the stabilization of the global population, and social justice, for all nations.

The cynics among you will say that it is all too difficult, and that I am naïve. I would rather be naïve than hopeless. The hard-nosed will say that we cannot afford it. Nonsense. US overseas aid is currently 0.1% of GDP--a derisory sum--and the US intends to pull out of some of this tiny sum because it may be used to promote contraception. The mind boggles.

So, conservation biology: where next?

We must continue to do our science, but do it in determined and creative partnerships with Earth System Scientists, technologists, lawyers, socio-economists, politicians and aid workers, as we strive reduce our own footprint on the planet and to create a fairer world, with a future for biodiversity. And we must invest more of our own time in demanding that policy makers, politicians, and the public understand the dire state of the planet.

If we succeed, we will deliver a more sustainable future. If we fail, the future does not bear thinking about.

Literature Cited

1. K. Smith, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, pers. comm.

2. Karieva, P. (2002) TREE 17, 162.

3. Yu, D.W. et al. (2002) TREE 17, 341-344.

4. Lawton, J.H. (2001) Science 292, 1965.

5. Pimm, S.L. (2001) The World According to Pimm, McGraw-Hill, New York.

6. Hawken, P. et al. (1999) Natural Capitalism. Earthscan, London.

John Lawton (Chief Executive, Natural Environment Research Council, UK, and Centre for Population Biology, Imperial College, Silwood Park, UK) received SCB's 2002 Edward T. LaRoe III Memorial Award in recognition of his leadership in translating principles of conservation science into real-world conservation and policy.

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to REPELLING INVADERS AND OTHER CHALLENGES FOR THE CHARLES DARWIN FOUNDATION AND THE GALAPAGOS NATIONAL PARK SERVICE