From Readers

Your Letters and Comments

Making Conservation Profitable

Conservationists in Papua New Guinea (PNG) are witnessing the growing enthusiasm for carbon credit trading. PNG is a poor country where most of the land is still forested and owned by customary landowners. Recently, a landowner in a remote village surprised me by asking when the World Bank was coming to pay for his forest. One of several critical problems I can see with the “commodification” of ecosystem services (in “Making Conservation Profitable,” Spring 2003) is that it reinforces the notion that forests should yield cash. Given a stronger cash-from-forest expectation, many landowners will have but one place to turn—logging. Carbon deals will likely reach only a few forest owners in many tropical countries, but logging is pervasive. For conservationists advocating that forests have inherent value for their traditional uses (building materials, swidden gardening, bushmeat, medicines, etc.), the blossoming expectation of cash from carbon credits might perform a disservice.

I am not convinced carbon swaps reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being released, but as one politician here told me “who cares, so long as we can get money for our forests?” Polluting power companies that buy a piece of Bolivian forest might assuage our concerns about threatened biodiversity. But if forest clearance is simply displaced to another part of Amazonia, there is no net benefit. If power companies are not required to reduce emissions and there is no reduction in net forest conversion, then where is the reduction in greenhouse gases? Will the government feel it is unfair to require companies to invest in cleaner burning technologies or fuels after they’ve invested in a carbon deal? What happens to those carbon deals when a cleaner technology becomes available that is cheaper than forest leases?

I applaud the creative thinking and willingness to experiment described in the article. But if the experiment blossoms and then fails or does not spread beyond a few boutique projects, then many forest resource owners will be left with raised expectations of cash and few places to turn other than logging. When assessing the potential benefits of carbon deals, it is not sufficient to only look at where the deals occur. The cost-benefit analysis must also look at everywhere the deals do not occur and the policy and expectations that might be affected.

ANDREW L. MACK

Goroka, Papua New Guinea

Rules of Engagement for Conservation

I wish to congratulate John and Terese Hart for their accurate depiction of the conditions required to maintain basic conservation action in time of conflict (“Rules of Engagement for Conservation,” Winter 2003). Their analysis, however, is based on the recent events in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and does not make reference to the similar events that took place 40 years ago during the violent aftermath of the country’s independence. The very same threats to national parks’ integrity then were caused by the same factors: armed conflict, encroachments, disorganized management authority, unpaid guards, etc. At that time, none of the vital inputs that the Harts consider necessary to advance conservation during armed conflicts, i.e., highly trained personnel, up-to-date information, and secure financial backing, were available in the field. Nongovernmental organizations and foreign cooperation agencies were nonexistent. Fortunately, a few “conservation heroes”—both Congolese wardens and Belgian field scientists—managed to energize the guards and with them, to save the parks from total destruction.

How could such a thing happen without strong international backing? This kind of “miracle” is most probably due to the amazing sense of commitment and bravery of the DRC parks staff, unique among Central African countries. It dates back to colonial times and to the Mobutu era, when pride, loyalty, and team spirit were taught as values as equally as important as technical skills. These values were acknowledged in 2001 when the Society for Conservation Biology gave its Merit Award to the Congolese National Parks Institute (ICCN) in recognition of the guards’ commitment during the recent conflict.

The additional lesson that conservationists should therefore not forget is this: DRC parks have a long history in Africa, and this evolution (as opposed to a “conflict-born vision for conservation”) progressively shaped a true—albeit unwritten—local conservation philosophy that has to be sustained. Unfortunately, very few accounts of this 75 years of evolution have been published in the English literature thus far.

DR. J.P. D’HUART

WWF Belgium

Biological control

Your recent article “The Conundrum of Biocontrol: Weighing Urgency against Uncertainty” in the Spring 2003 issue was excellent. The use of biocontrol to manage invasive species is a challenging task with a full range of complexities, which the article discusses very nicely. As the threat of invasives pushes ecosystems further away from their natural balances, biocontrol will—more so than ever before—be discussed as a legitimate and sometimes critical tool. It becomes imperative to understand the far-reaching implications of biocontrol by carefully researching the impacts—both positive and negative—of introducing a species to a foreign ecosystem.

As technology and development have forged their ways across lines of conservation, publications such as Conservation In Practice have become increasingly important in today’s world. As a scientist, I commend such efforts as we work to protect biodiversity, strategically and carefully. The efforts of modern science may have increased the feasibility of biocontrol, but it remains still an uncertain process in delicate balance.

DR. DOUG PEARSALL

The Nature Conservancy

Caution Needed in Biological Control Efforts

Controlling invasive species by deliberately introducing their exotic natural enemies seems so simple and straightforward, so ecological. Yet, the outcome depends upon our ability to predict complex ecological interactions in new communities, something we’re not very good at doing (1, 2). So, we concur with the cautious, conservation-oriented perspective on biological control of Van Driesche and Van Driesche (“The Conundrum of Biocontrol: Weighing Urgency against Uncertainty,” Spring 2003). Asking the right questions, with caution and humility, identifying the real problem, developing ecological goals, using knowledge thoughtfully, and avoiding “collateral” damage (a strange euphemism) are important and often overlooked.

Our current research, however, suggests three issues that require more consideration. First, the jury is still out on longer-term evolutionary consequences. Although we found that the weevil Rhinocyllus conicus still prefers its weedy coevolved host, we also found that weevils from the native thistle accept it much more readily than do those from the naturalized weed, consistent with adaptive change. Second, small population sizes of the natives cannot predict impact or persistence of the exotic. This argument was made for R. conicus; yet, the sparse Platte thistle sustains the weevil in the absence of its preferred host. Finally, indirect effects need more attention. Theory and our recent studies show that less preferred native species can suffer from a shared predator. The greater the biocontrol population on the pest, the greater the pressure on the less preferred native.

The bottom line is that biological control is an option but should be reserved for well defined, major, intractable problems with low/no impact on native species. Alternative pest management strategies exist; “do nothing” is not the only alternative. Prediction of the outcome of new ecological interactions is tentative. The precautionary principle (3) argues: “First, do no harm.” This rings true, especially in conservation.

SVATA M. LOUDA ()

University of Nebraska

F. LELAND RUSSELL ()

University of Nebraska

TATYANA A. RAND ()

University of Nebraska

Literature Cited:

1. Louda, S.M. et al. 2003. Nontarget effects — the Achilles’ heel of biological control? Retrospective analyses to reduce risk associated with biocontrol introductions. Annual Review of Entomology 48:365-396.

2. Louda, S.M. and P. Stiling. 2003. Biological control, a double-edged sword in conservation and restoration. Conservation Biology (17). In press.

3. Simberloff, D. and P. Stiling. 1996. How risky is biological control? Ecology 77:1965-1974.