 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The greatest threat to biodiversity around the globe is the loss of habitat. Over one-third of documented animal extinctions were due to habitat destruction. Most habitat loss is caused by human conversion of land to other uses, such as agriculture. Low crop yields and increasing human populations create substantial pressure to convert habitat to farmland. In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, the use of land for agriculture and livestock poses a substantial threat to biodiversity. Other causes of species decline, such as poaching and commercial exploitation, may receive more media attention, but they a relatively minor role in biodiversity's decline. This is particularly where "charismatic megafauna" — large appealing species such as elephants, rhinos, pandas and tigers — are concerned. Yet few, if any, species extinctions can be blamed on international trade in species and species products or poaching. As with other species, habitat loss and degradation is the number-one threat. Large species in particular compete directly with people for land use, often posing a threat to human well-being, if not life itself (tigers and lions kill animals, including humans; elephants and rhinos eat vast quantities of cellulose). So if the value of the land is higher in an alternative use, such as farming, than in conserving species, the locals will kill the animals. Despite the international consensus that habitat conservation is the key to biodiversity conservation, international environmental agreements have done little to conserve habitat. In some cases, conservation conventions have actually made things worse. The 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) is the oldest, and most controversial international species-conservation convention. CITES operates by restricting trade in goods derived from species listed as threatened or endangered. Such trade restrictions, however well intentioned, decrease the economic value of the "protected species," thereby destroying the greatest hope for such species survival. If land is more valuable for growing crops and grazing cattle than for raising elephants and rhinos, habitat will disappear irrespective of whether poachers can sell ivory overseas. As Jon Hutton and Barnabas Dickson of Africa Resources Trust explain: "By restricting trade in wild species, and so limiting the benefits that humans can derive from them, CITES has actually reduced the incentive to maintain wildlife habitat." Commercial utilization of species, even through eco-tourism or safari hunting, can provide a substantial economic incentive for conservation. As wildlife becomes more valuable, private landowners will invest more in its protection. As Grahame Webb found in the case of crocodiles, legal trade in a species can "be a significant deterrent to illegal trade, which is now markedly reduced around the world." Where wildlife does not have value, there may be few viable conservation options. Thus CITES, by eliminating the legal trade in many species products, is doing more to threaten endangered species than to sage them. Nearly 20 years after the adoption of CITES, United Nations representatives agreed upon a new convention to address the loss of species: the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The CBD was initially signed at the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The CBD calls for, "the conservation of biological diversity," "the sustainable use of its components," and "the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources." Like most international environmental agreements, the CBD is filled with broad language and ambiguous commitments. As a result, it is unclear whether the CBD will do much of anything to halt biodiversity's decline. For many countries, however, it seems that the CBD is merely another potential source of foreign assistance for government bureaucracies. Among other things, the CBD encourages governments to establish official "protected areas" to conserve species. This is misguided. Substantial amounts of land are already in officially designated "protected areas" around the globe, but such designations have done little to prevent the continued loss or degradation of habitat and ecosystems. Most nations lack sufficient resources to establish, demarcate, defend, and manage wildlife preserves on a scale sufficient to stem the loss of biological diversity. Even in wealthy nations, such as the United States, national parks, wildlife refuges, and other protected areas also fail to safeguard ecological resources due to persistent political mismanagement. In poorer nations, the prospect of protecting biological diversity thorough a series of government-owned and managed protected areas is even more bleak. As a recent report by IUCN and Future Harvest found, agricultural production threatens habitat and biodiversity in approximately half of all the major wildlife preserves in the world. The officially "protected" nature of these areas has had little effect. Some hope that the CBD will promote "bioprospecting" agreements that could protect biodiversity by encouraging pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to contract with local communities or governments to fund habitat conservation in return for access to genetic resources. As an example, bioprospecting proponents point to the 1991 INBio-Merck agreement in Costa Rica, under which Merck & Company agreed to pay $1 million in return for several thousand plant, insect, and soil samples collected in the Costa Rican rainforest. Merck received exclusive rights to the use of the samples while INBio, a local nonprofit, and the Costa Rican government were guaranteed a portion of any royalties from pharmaceuticals or other products developed from the samples. To be sure, this arrangement has provided substantial funds for conservation and has helped to spur additional bioprospecting agreements. Nevertheless, funding mechanisms based upon the potential value of genetic material found in undeveloped areas are likely to be of only limited value because one the prospecting has taken place, there is little reason for pharmaceutical companies or other firms to continue funding conservation efforts. Substantial royalties from such agreements have also failed to materialize. Bioprospecting is no panacea for biodiversity conservation, but it can help fund conservation efforts in developing nations. More importantly, there is little reason to believe the CBD will promote such agreements. Economic and legal institutions in the host country, particularly a legal system in which contracts can be entered into and enforced, are more important than any international treaty. The Merck-INBio deal was inked before CBD negotiations were concluded, and there is real concern that the CBD will promote regulatory bureaucracies that obstruct bioprospecting and other conservation agreements. While the CBD proper may not do much to promote biodiversity conservation directly, it has spawned a subsidiary agreement which could do great harm, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The stated purpose of the Biosafety Protocol is to establish safeguards against potential "adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity." Yet the protocol may well retard, rather than advance, the protection of biodiversity. The Protocol's operative provisions will do little, if anything, to promote or enhance habitat conservation. Worse, the net effect of the Protocol could actually be to increase risks to biodiversity by making it more difficult for farmers to feed a growing global population without clearing more species habitat. As already noted, the greatest threat to biodiversity is the loss of habitat. One driver of habitat loss is the rising demand for food. Population growth and economic development are rapidly increasing the demand for food in much of the developing world. This creates a trade-off between increasing agricultural productivity and reducing the threat to biodiversity from land conversion. Meeting global food needs can be achieved either by clearing more land for agriculture or enhancing the productivity of existing agricultural lands. Genetically engineered crops are likely to play an integral role in increasing the productivity of existing croplands and thereby reducing pressures on species habitat — if their use is not stifled by an overly burdensome regulatory regime. A scientific panel convened by the World Bank and Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) concluded that genetic engineering could increase agricultural yields by as much as 25 percent. Without the contribution of new generations of genetically modified crops, it will be immensely difficult to meet the rising food demands of the world's peoples and still preserve large areas of undeveloped habitat. While the Biosafety Protocol is unlikely to increase the protection of rural environments in developing countries, it could well retard the use and development of genetically engineered crops. The more uncertain and costly the regulatory structure becomes, the more research and investment will steer clear of biotechnology. According to former Food and Drug Administration official Henry Miller, "[u]nnecessary governmental scrutiny in the form of case-by-case reviews will cause delays in the testing of biotechnological products, increase the potential for corruption and markedly inhibit the diffusion of this useful technology to the developing world." In other words, the Biosafety Protocol will limit one of the most important weapons in the fight to conserve biodiversity. The sorry record of international measures to save biodiversity should discourage environmentalists from placing their hopes in international environmental bureaucracies. Both the sustainable utilization of wildlife and increased agricultural productivity depend, in large part, upon liberal economic and legal institutions. Secure land tenure, economic liberty, and the rule of law are essential elements of an institutional environment in which conservation can thrive. If the delegates at the WSSD are truly concerned with advancing environmental conservation, they will stop adopting international conventions and promote economic liberalization and technological advance. Unfortunately, this is a message likely to be lost amid the din in Johannesburg. — Jonathan H. Adler is an assistant professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law and an NRO contributing editor. This essay is adapted from his chapter in the new book, Sustainable Development: Promoting Progress or Perpetuating Poverty? Edited by Julian Morris. |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
epresentatives
from nearly all nations of the world are convening in Johannesburg this
week at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). One of the
most important issues on their agenda is the conservation of biological
diversity. The precise extent of biodiversity loss is unknown, but the
fact that species and habitat are disappearing is quite certain. Human
activity has accelerated the rate of species extinction substantially.
Even though humanity does not face the extinction "crisis" that
threatens our survival, the danger to many species is real and worthy
of concern. Unfortunately the WSSD is unlikely to do anything to protect
biological diversity. Indeed, some of the international community's "solutions"
could actually increase biodiversity's peril.
