Trade-off: clearing trees to make way for cotton farming, Burkina Faso

Plants or people? The debate continues

David Dickson
23 May 2005

Is preserving biodiversity compatible with achieving the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals? Judging by reactions to the most recent report on global biodiversity, the answer seems to depend on where one is coming from.

Last Sunday — for those who may not have noticed — was World Biodiversity Day. This is an annual event nominated by the United Nations, and intended to deepen awareness of the fact that human survival depends on safeguarding plant and animal life on Earth. This year's biological diversity day sought to capture this concept in its theme: 'Biodiversity is the life insurance of life itself'.

Those of a semantic frame of mind, however, should perhaps not inquire too closely about the meaning of this statement. After all, life insurance is usually used to refer to the money paid to an individual in the event of his or her death or injury. It is difficult to square this neatly with the concept that those who came up with the slogan were no doubt trying to convey: that a healthy biodiversity is essential for all inhabitants of the planet to lead a healthy life.

In itself, of course, the ambiguity in the slogan is not important. But it does reflect deeper — and much more significant — uncertainty over how we should think about biodiversity. In particular, it demonstrates a deep-rooted ambivalence about how we should link thoughts to actions in our efforts to protect and preserve the world that surrounds us.

Increasingly, those arguing for such action, whether by governments, corporations or individuals, are recognising the importance of placing it within an existing, more familiar, framework of decision-making. By describing biodiversity as 'life insurance', the hope — presumably — was that the idea of obtaining benefits by paying regular, relatively small, premiums would strike a chord with many people who might reject a more abstract message.

Sadly, however, there is no agreement on the nature of this framework. Which makes it difficult when attempting to reach an international consensus on policies in which the preservation of biodiversity is one important dimension — but far from the only one.

The biodiversity challenge

Such issues have been starkly highlighted by the latest report to emerge from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a global effort to establish the scientific basis for actions needed to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of ecosystems, as well as their contributions to meeting human needs (see Protecting biodiversity 'may clash with pursuit of MDGs').

Under the title Ecosystems and Human Well-Being, the report gives a graphic and convincing account of the importance of biodiversity for human welfare. It stresses, in particular, the essential role played by what are described as 'ecosystem services', not only through contributing to material livelihood and welfare, for example by providing food, water and traditional medicine, but also in other dimensions (such as a source of cultural inspiration and aesthetic pleasure).

The report repeats an increasingly familiar litany of warnings about the extent to which such services are currently under threat. It points out for example, that changes in biodiversity due to human activities "were more rapid in the past 50 years than at any time in human history". 

Not all is gloom and doom. The panel responsible for compiling the report admits that there are certain areas of the world in which, even if biodiversity loss is not being reversed, at least the rate at which such loss is increasing has been slowed down. Indeed, there is substantial evidence of such trends in the report for those looking at positive news about the potential gains from human intervention (even if they are given little attention in what are identified as the report's 'key messages').

But the overall message is a stark one. The "drivers of change" that cause biodiversity loss, it says, "are either steady, show no evidence of declining over time, or are increasing in intensity". Under four "plausible" future scenarios, such rates of change "are projected to continue, or to accelerate". 

The report says that an "unprecedented effort" is required even to meet the goal outlined in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) of "significantly reducing" biodiversity loss by the year 2010.

Political realities

So far, so good. But what does all this mean in the world of international politics? Here we run yet again into the dilemma that there is, as yet, no simple language in which both the science of biodiversity loss, and social actions needed to stem this loss (that are also compatible with other social goals and priorities), can be comfortably discussed.

The most obvious example of this dilemma lies in the tension between the steps that the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment says are essential for biodiversity to be adequately protected — particularly to meet the goals of the CBD — and the separate strategies that others say are just as necessary to achieve the social objective of reducing global poverty (for example, through the UN Millennium Development Goals, or MDGs).

The dilemma is clearly outlined in last week's report. This points out, for example, that building the infrastructure — such as roads and dams — needed to enable rural communities to escape chronic poverty can often have a negative impact on local biodiversity. And that "trade-offs" are therefore required between environmental and social goals (including achieving the MDGs).

Such a suggestion, however, has angered some of those working in the sustainable development field. They argue that the concept of 'trade-offs' is an out-dated way of thinking about the problem, implying as it does that those seeking to reduce poverty and those keen to protect natural biodiversity are, by definition, sitting in opposing camps.

Need for a broad vision

The real challenge, of course, is to produce a set of policy initiatives that embrace the two. In other words, we need to develop a way of thinking about biodiversity issues that does not frame them into a single dimension – conceived essentially as the 'health of the environment' – but is able to locate them in a social context in which rational decisions about what benefits both nature and society can be made.

As is being increasingly pointed out, achieving this goal will require the development of a set of analytical instruments able to produce the data on which such decisions can be made. This is the task that the field of 'environmental economics' has set itself. And despite some early setbacks, when crude efforts at placing a monetary value on environmental goods and services were legitimately ridiculed by environmentalists (and some economists), the field is growing in both legitimacy and impact.

But it also requires a little more humility and imagination on both sides than is frequently present in the exchanges between them. On the one hand, economists need to be more modest about the extent to which either reducing poverty or protecting biodiversity can be achieved through top-down political pressure, market incentives, and the massive injection of public funds. Each of these is essential, but also needs to be integrated into a broader vision of the effective levers of social action.

Conversely, those keen to defend the planet's biodiversity could often benefit from an equal amount of modesty in pushing their own claims to be the top political priority. It is one thing, for example, to emphasise that healthy societies require healthy ecosystems. But it is not the only one. And to argue that concern for the environment should top everything else reflects a brand of fundamentalism that can be dangerously blinkered.

    據Scidev.net5月23日消息,，保存生物多樣性是否與實現聯合國的“千年發(fā)展目標”相一致呢,？根據各國對最近一份全球生物多樣性報告的不同反應,，可以看出每個國家的情況是不同的,。

    5月22日是世界生物多樣性日，旨在提醒人類要保護地球上的動植物資源,，而2005年的主題是“生物多樣性——適應變化世界的生命保險”,。從一般語義上理解，生命保險就是指某人死亡或受傷后獲得的金錢賠償,；而這一主題所要表達的是：健康的生物多樣性對于地球上所有居住者來說是至關重要的,。雖然口號本身不是特別明確，但反映出人類必須深入思考如何用行動來保護我們生存的環(huán)境,。

    近年來,，提倡這一行動的政府、企業(yè)或個人日益增加,，并且他們認為最好是利用現有的,、較熟悉的決策框架。將生物多樣性比擬為生命保險,，就是指通過定期付出少量費用,，然后得到較大利益。但到目前為止,，仍然沒有關于保存生物多樣性的國際性協議。

    生物多樣性面臨的挑戰(zhàn)

    “千年生態(tài)系統評估” （Millennium Ecosystem Assessment）是聯合國發(fā)起的一項科學評估運動,，目的是為加強生態(tài)系統的保存和可持續(xù)性利用打下科學基礎,。最近，一份名為“生態(tài)系統與人類”的報告通過圖片及有力的數據說明了生態(tài)系統對人類幸福的重要意義,。報告強調,，生態(tài)系統的服務功能不僅體現在為人類提供物質生存（如食物、水和傳統藥物）,，而且還包括其他很多方面（如：作為藝術靈感和審美情趣的來源）,。

    同時還指出，目前這些服務正處于危險的狀況,。例如,，人類在過去50年里的活動比以往任何時候都更加快速，因此給生物多樣性帶來了不小的變化,。

    當然,，負責編輯這一報告的研究人員也承認，世界上某些地區(qū)的生物多樣性流失率已經開始下降,。報告為此提供了充分的證據,，表明人類的行動給生物多樣性可能帶來的正面影響（即使人類只是對此稍加重視）。

    但整體情況是不容樂觀的,。引起生物多樣性流失的動機是穩(wěn)步增長的,，短期內不會有所下降,。因此，要達到《生物多樣性公約》（Convention on Biological Diversity）的目標——到2010年大大減少生物多樣性流失,，人類還是需要付出極大努力的,。

    政治因素

    目前，沒有一個國家可以輕松地討論用生物多樣性科學和社會行動來阻止生物多樣性的流失,。最明顯的例子就是,，“千年生態(tài)系統評估”指出生物多樣性應該得到充分保護，以實現《生物多樣性公約》的目標,；另一方面,，其他還有用于消除全球貧困的單獨策略（如，聯合國千年發(fā)展目標）,。

     “生態(tài)系統與人類”報告清楚地描述了這一困境,。如，建設基礎設施（道路,、水壩）可以使農村擺脫貧困,，但也給當地的生物多樣性造成了負面影響。這種“交替換位”的情況在保護環(huán)境和實現社會目標兩者之間是必需出現的（包括實現聯合國千年發(fā)展目標）,。

    但是,，這一提議惹怒了那些支持可持續(xù)發(fā)展的人們。他們認為“交替換位”的理念用來處理這類問題早已經是過時了,，這種概念只能表明尋求消除貧困和保護生物多樣性一定是水火不容的,。

    必需的遠見卓識

    當然，我們真正面臨的挑戰(zhàn)就是要制定一套能同時處理好這兩點問題的政策方針,。換句話說,，我們在考慮生物多樣性問題時的方式不能局限于單一的范圍之內，站在整個社會的角度出發(fā),，不僅要保護自然還要有利于社會,。

    而要制定這些政策，我們需要一套能夠產生數據的分析設備,，這就是“環(huán)境經濟學”領域的任務了,。雖然用貨幣價值衡量環(huán)境商品和服務的努力在早期遭遇了一些挫折，也受到環(huán)境論者（和一些經濟學家）的嘲笑,，但這一領域正在不斷步入正軌,。通過政治壓力、市場刺激,、和政府資金大量注入等方式來減少貧困和保護生物多樣性,，經濟學家對可能獲取的成功尺度也需要采取更為保守的態(tài)度。因為，雖然每一個因素都是基本的,，但還需要運用社會行動的有效杠桿將它們融合進入一個更為寬泛的概念中,。