Carbon for forests will help Aceh recover from war, tsunami

Aceh Governor Irwandi Jusuf, a former rebel who was one of only 40 survivors after the December 2004 tsunami struck the prison where he was incarcerated, is now one of Indonesia's leading supporters of forest conservation funded through carbon credits.
Carbon credits through forest conservation will play an important role in Aceh's recovery from decades of civil strife and the devastating 2004 tsunami, which left more than 167,000 people dead and 500,000 homeless in the Indonesia province, said Aceh governor Irwandi Jusuf in meeting in San Francisco. "The world needs more forests to store carbon," he said. "Aceh can give you these forests. This is my obsession -- the forests of Aceh need to be kept well." In one of his first moves as governor, Irwandi in March declared a moratorium on all logging in the province, which had seen an up tick in timber cutting for tsunami reconstruction efforts. The move -- met with derision by some in the Indonesian forestry sector -- was welcomed by environmentalists and appears to have diminished legal and illegal logging, which is rampant in other parts of the country. Irwandi says that protecting Aceh's forests -- which are some of the largest blocks of rainforest remaining on the island of Sumatra -- is his top priority for rebuilding the economy. The next step, he says, is to promote economic growth through sustainable development and reforestation.
"We can provide a lot of employment through a reforestation program," said Irwandi. "People who used to be paid to cut forests can now be paid to reforest. Aceh has 3 million hectares (7.5 million acres) of degraded land that can be used for reforestation and agricultural expansion." "I see three areas," he continued. "Areas of no harvest which are preserved for wildlife, carbon, and other services; community forestry areas where degraded lands are replanted with fruit and timber trees that are then sustainably managed; and the remaining land for oil palm and rubber plantations. Irwandi says that Aceh needs money to start the program and believes that funds could come from carbon credits through avoided deforestation. "I think within six years we could have the world's biggest forest carbon offset program," he said. Avoided deforestation is the process by which forested countries earn carbon credits for protecting forests that lock up large amounts of carbon. Deforestation is a major source of greenhouse gases, accounting for roughly 20 percent of global emissions. Steps to reduce forest clearing and degradation will help mitigate climate change.
Most of Sumatra's lowland rainforest has been cleared by loggers and for oil palm plantations. The conflict in Aceh effectively protected the province's forests by preventing such development. Overall the avoided deforestation market could be substantial -- on the order of tens of billions of dollars per year. Gains would extend beyond helping fighting climate change -- avoided deforestation offers the potential to simultaneously conserve biodiversity, alleviate rural poverty, protect important ecosystem services, and reduce the risk of forest fires in the tropics. Under the existing Kyoto agreement, only reforestation and afforestation are eligible for carbon credits -- forest protection is specifically excluded from receiving carbon credits -- but considerable momentum for avoided deforestation makes it likely that the mechanism will be carefully considered during the next round of climate talks in Bali, Indonesia in December. Last week a group of eight tropical countries containing 80 percent of the world's remaining tropical forest cover -- Brazil, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Gabon, Cameroon, Costa Rica, Congo and Indonesia -- announced an alliance to push avoided deforestation at the upcoming conference. Irwandi, a veterinarian by trade, was formerly a rebel leader with the Free Aceh Movement (GAM), a separatist movement that the Indonesian government has battled for decades. Arrested in 2003, Irwandi was held at Keudah Prison in Banda Aceh when the December 26, 2004 tsunami struck and flooded the facility. Irwandi survived by punching a hole through the ceiling and fleeing to the roof. He was one of 40 survivors at the prison. During the reconciliation that followed the tsunami, Irwandi was elected governor in Aceh’s first democratic election in almost 30 years. The soldiers who once hunted him are now his guards.

Malaysia to step up laws on illegal logging

KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) - Malaysia, a major timber exporter, said Tuesday that it would beef up its laws to fight a serious illegal logging problem that could harm the country's reputation.
ADVERTISEMENT
if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object();
window.yzq_d['JwRGndGDJGs-']='&U=13ad4bvd1%2fN%3dJwRGndGDJGs-%2fC%3d570180.9955586.10735075.1442997%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d4324711';
Deputy prime minister Najib Razak, who also heads the National Forestry Council, said companies involved in logging would now be responsible for providing evidence that they had not cut down trees illegally.
"The council agreed to review and amend the National Forestry Act to incorporate the principle that the burden of proof was transferred to the party that is found to be in possession of timber," he said.
"This means those found in possession of timber must furnish proof from where the trees were cut. If they cannot show proof, it means they have committed an offence," he was quoted as saying by the official Bernama news agency.
Najib's remarks come after Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi pledged last month not to indiscriminately approve logging licences, amid mounting concern that clearances are threatening endangered species and tribal communities.
Najib warned that illegal logging could compromise Malaysia's policy on sustainable management of its environment.
"It can jeopardise our efforts to preserve biodiversity, flora and fauna and have an impact on global warming. At the international level, illegal logging portrays a negative image of our country," he said.
"It can harm our national economy as the timber industry produces 23 billion ringgit (6.8 billion dollars) worth of wood-based products a year," he added.
Najib said that if developed countries in Europe and the United States were to take action, it could "adversely affect" Malaysia's economy.

Malaysia Lifts Ban on Export of Monkeys - Report

KUALA LUMPUR - Malaysia has lifted a ban on the export of long-tailed macaques in a bid to thin the population of the monkeys, which are becoming a menace in urban areas, state news agency Bernama said on Friday.
Malaysia is negotiating to export the animals to Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea and Japan, where they could end up as food or as pets, the New Straits Times newspaper said.
"The cabinet has decided to lift the ban which was imposed in 1984 on the capture and export of this type of monkey," Bernama quoted Environment Minister Azmi Khalid said as telling a news conference.
"These monkeys create havoc in urban areas, not only stealing food from houses but also attacking people, and this is a cause for worry," said Azmi, speaking in the country's administrative capital of Putrajaya.
Azmi said efforts to curb their numbers through sterilisation had failed.
An environment ministry study showed that there were 258,406 long-tailed macaques living in urban areas in peninsular Malaysia, with 483,747 living in the wild, Bernama reported.
The export ban was being lifted only in peninsular Malaysia, but not the country's eastern states of Sabah and Sarawak on the island of Borneo, it added.
The ministry had yet to decide on how to catch the monkeys and export them, Azmi said.
"We want to make sure that long-tailed monkeys in the wild are not disturbed," he said. "We also want to ensure that monkeys caught in urban areas are not ill-treated in the process of export. These monkeys still are on the endangered list of animals, so we have to do this right."
Malaysian wildlife authorities smashed a ring of smugglers last month and confiscated more than 900 poached monkeys destined for China or the Netherlands in what officials said was their biggest seizure involving the animal so far.
The original export ban on the monkeys was the result of an alarming drop in their numbers after an average of 10,000 animals were exported each year in the 1970s for use in biomedical research, as food or as pets, the New Straits Times said.

World on Sustainable Development

Poverty and the Environment
The causes of poverty and of environmental degradation are inter-related suggesting that approaching sustainable development requires understanding the issues from many angles, not just say an environmentalist or economics perspective alone. Last updated Saturday, February 12, 2005.
Read article: Poverty and the Environment
Non-governmental Organizations on Development Issues
What does an ever-increasing number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) mean? NGOs are non-profit organizations filling the gap where governments will not, or cannot function. In the past however, some NGOs from the wealthy nations have received a bad reputation in some developing nations because of things like arrogance, imposition of their views, being a foreign policy arm or tool of the original country and so on. Even in recent years some of these criticisms still hold. However, recently some new and old NGOs alike, have started to become more participatory and grassroots-oriented to help empower the people they are trying to help, to help themselves. This is in general a positive turn. Yet, the fact that there are so many NGOs popping up everywhere perhaps points to failures of international systems of politics, economics, markets, and basic rights. Last updated Wednesday, June 01, 2005.
Read article: Non-governmental Organizations on Development Issues
US and Foreign Aid Assistance
The US being the wealthiest, strongest and most influential nation, it is worth seeing how their actions or inaction affect other nations. One notable area is regarding the issue of debt and poverty. Being a major part of the IMF, World Bank and even helping to formulate the UN about 50 years ago, their actions can be felt around the world. Last updated Sunday, April 08, 2007.
Read article: US and Foreign Aid Assistance
G8: Too Much Power?
The G8 (the G7—United States, Japan, Germany, UK, France, Germany, Canada—and Russia) make up the most powerful economies and militaries in the world. Together, their influence on world affairs is enormous, and their annual summits become a focal point for global protests and campaigns on issues such as poverty, aid, trade, climate change, Africa, development, and so on. Posted Sunday, June 10, 2007.
Read article: G8: Too Much Power?
Water and Development
Issues such as water privatization are important in the developing world especially as it goes right to the heart of water rights, profits over people, and so on. This article looks into these issues and the impacts it has on people around the world. Last updated Saturday, September 01, 2007.
Read article: Water and Development
Brain Drain of Workers from Poor to Rich Countries
Brain drain is a problem for many poor countries losing skilled workers to richer countries. In healthcare, the effects can often be seen vividly. For example, in many rich countries, up to one third of doctors may be from abroad, many from Sub-Sahara Africa, while many African countries have as little as 500 doctors serving their entire population. Reasons for this brain drain vary, ranging from poor conditions domestically to attractive opportunities and active enticement from abroad. Posted Friday, April 14, 2006.
Read article: Brain Drain of Workers from Poor to Rich Countries
World Summit on Sustainable Development
This section introduces some of the issues on the international summit (August 26 - September 4, 2002) where thousands of delegates met to discuss various issues comprising sustainable development. Of course, there was a lot of controversy including differences between the global North and South on all sorts of issues such as corporate-led globalization, privatization of energy, water, health, etc. In addition there was also concern about motives and influences of large corporations on the outcomes of the Summit. Last updated Saturday, September 07, 2002.
Read article: World Summit on Sustainable Development
United Nations on Development Issues
The United Nations is the largest international body involved in development issues around the world. However, it has many political issues and problems to contend with. But, despite this, it is also performing some much needed tasks around the world, through its many satellite organizations and entities, providing a means to realize the Declaration of Human Rights. Unfortunately though, it is not perfect and is negatively affected by politics of powerful nations that wish to further their own interests. Last updated Wednesday, July 25, 2001.

Sustainomics and sustainable development

Sustainomics seeks to provide a comprehensive, practical framework for making present and future development efforts more sustainable. Sustainable development has become well accepted worldwide, following the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, and the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg. World decision makers are now looking at this approach to address many critical policy issues.
The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED 1987) defined sustainable development as “development which meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Among many subsequent definitions, the sustainable development triangle in Figure 1 shows one widely-accepted concept proposed by Munasinghe, at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. It encompasses three major perspectives—economic, social, and environmental.

Figure 1. Sustainable development triangle – key elements and links (corners, sides, center). Source: Adapted from Munasinghe, 1992, 1994
Historically, the development of the industrialized world focused on material production. Not surprisingly, most industrialized and developing nations have pursued the economic goal of increasing output and growth during the twentieth century. Thus, traditional development was strongly associated with economic growth, with some social aspects as well (see the discussion on poverty and equity, below). By the early 1960s the lack of ‘trickle-down’ benefits to the growing numbers of poor in developing countries, resulted in greater efforts to improve income distribution directly. Consequently, the development paradigm shifted towards equitable growth, where social (distributional) objectives, especially poverty alleviation, were recognized to be as important as economic efficiency. By the early 1980s, a large body of evidence had accumulated that environmental degradation was a major barrier to development, and new proactive safeguards were introduced (such as the environmental assessments). Thus, protection of the environment became the third major element of sustainable development.
Sustainomics has been described by Munasinghe as “a transdisciplinary, integrative, comprehensive, balanced, heuristic and practical framework for making development more sustainable”. It draws on the following basic principles and methods.
Making development more sustainable (MDMS)
The step-by-step approach of “making development more sustainable” (MDMS) becomes the prime objective, while sustainable development is defined as a process (rather than an end point). Since the precise definition of sustainable development remains an elusive and perhaps unreachable goal, a less ambitious strategy that merely seeks to make development more sustainable does offer greater promise. Such a gradient-based method is more practical and permits us to address urgent priorities without delay, because many unsustainable activities are easier to recognize and eliminate. Although MDMS is incremental, it does not imply any limitation in scope (e.g., restricted time horizon or geographic area – see item (c) below). While pursuing the MDMS approach, we also follow a parallel track by continuing our efforts to better define the ultimate goal of sustainable development. Finally, MDMS encourages us to keep future options open and seek robust strategies which meet multiple contingencies and increase resilience.
Sustainable development triangle and balanced viewpoint
Sustainable development requires balanced and integrated analysis from three main perspectives: social, economic, and environmental (Figure 1). Each viewpoint (represented by a vertex) corresponds to a domain (and system) that has its own distinct driving forces and objectives. The economic view is geared towards improving human welfare, primarily through increases in the consumption of goods and services. The environmental domain focuses on protection of the integrity and resilience of ecological systems. The social domain emphasizes the enrichment of human relationships and achievement of individual and group aspirations. The interactions among domains (represented by the sides) are also important to ensure balanced assessment of trade-offs and synergies that might exist among the three dimensions. Issues like poverty may be placed in the center of the triangle to re-emphasize that they are linked to all three dimensions.
Transcending conventional boundaries for better integration
The analysis transcends conventional boundaries imposed by discipline, space, time, stakeholder viewpoints, and operationality. The scope is broadened and extended in all domains, to ensure a comprehensive view. Trans-disciplinary analysis must cover economics, social science and ecology, as well as many other disciplines—since sustainable development itself involves every aspect of human activity, including complex interactions among socioeconomic, ecological and physical systems. Spatial analysis must range from the global to the very local, while the time horizon may extend to decades or centuries. Participation of all stakeholders (including government, private sector and civil society) through inclusion, empowerment and consultation, is important. The analysis needs to encompass the full operational cycle from data gathering to practical policy implementation and monitoring of outcomes. Applying the principle of subsidiarity will make overall governance more effective.
Full cycle application of practical analytical tools
A variety of practical analytical tools also facilitate governance over the full cycle from initial data gathering to ultimate policy implementation.
Two complementary approaches based on “optimality” and “durability” may be used to integrate and synthesize across economic, social and environmental domains, within an integrated assessment modeling framework. An issues-implementation transformation map (IITM) helps to translate issues in the environmental and social domains, into the conventional national economic planning and implementing mechanisms within line ministries and departments.
Restructuring the pattern of development to make economic growth more sustainable is explained through a “policy tunneling” model, especially useful in developing countries, where poverty alleviation will require continued increases in income and consumption. Other practical tools include the Action Impact Matrix (AIM), integrated national economic-environmental accounting (SEEA), sustainable development assessment (SDA), environmental valuation, extended cost-benefit analysis (CBA), multi-criteria analysis (MCA), integrated assessment models (IAMs), and so on. A range of sustainable development indicators help to measure progress and make choices at various levels of aggregation.
In the sustainomics framework, sustainable development is described as a process for improving the range of opportunities that will enable individual human beings and communities to achieve their aspirations and full potential over a sustained period of time, while maintaining the resilience of economic, social and environmental systems. Thus, sustainable development requires both increases in adaptive capacity and opportunities for improving economic, social and ecological systems. According to Gunderson and Holling, improving adaptive capacity increases resilience and sustainability. Expanding the set of opportunities for improvement gives rise to development. Heuristic behavior of individual organisms and systems facilitates learning, the testing of new processes, adaptation, and improvement.
The sustainomics framework recognizes that balance is needed in the relative emphasis placed on traditional development (which is more appealing to the South) versus sustainability (which is emphasised by the North). The approach seeks continuing improvements in the present quality of life at a lower intensity of resource use, thus leaving behind for future generations an undiminished stock of productive assets (i.e., manufactured, natural and social capital) that will improve their quality of life.
Elements of Sustainable Development
Economic Aspects
Economic progress is often evaluated in terms of welfare (or utility) – measured as willingness to pay for goods and services consumed. Thus, many economic policies typically seek to enhance income, and induce more efficient production and consumption of goods and services. The stability of prices and employment are among other important objectives.
Economic efficiency helps maximize income. It is measured against the ideal of Pareto optimality, which encourages actions that will improve the welfare of at least one individual without worsening the situation of anyone else. The idealized, perfectly competitive economy is an important (Pareto optimal) benchmark, where (efficient) market prices play a key role in both allocating productive resources to maximize output, and ensuring optimal consumption choices which maximize consumer utility. If significant economic distortions are present, appropriate shadow prices may be used. The well-known cost-benefit criterion accepts all projects whose net benefits are positive (i.e., aggregate benefits exceed costs). It is based on the weaker ‘quasi’ Pareto condition, which assumes that such net benefits could be redistributed from potential gainers to losers—leaving no one worse off than before. More generally, interpersonal comparisons of welfare are fraught with difficulty – both within and across nations, and over time (e.g., the value of human life).
According to Hicks, economic sustainability seeks to maximize the flow of income that could be generated while at least maintaining the stock of assets (or capital) which yield these beneficial outputs. Economic efficiency continues to optimize both production and consumption. Problems arise in identifying the kinds of capital to be maintained (e.g., manufactured, natural, human and social capital), and their substitutability. Often, it is difficult to value these assets (especially ecological and social resources) and the services they provide. Even key economic assets may be overlooked, especially in situations where non-market based transactions are important. Meanwhile, the equation of welfare with monetary income and consumption has been challenged for many years. More recently, researchers (e.g., Maslow 1970) have identified hierarchies of needs that provide psychic satisfaction, beyond mere goods and services.
The issues of uncertainty, irreversibility and catastrophic collapse pose additional difficulties, in determining dynamically efficient development paths. Many common microeconomic approaches rely on marginal analysis (e.g., comparing incremental costs and benefits of economic activities), which assumes smoothly changing variables. They are inappropriate for analyzing large changes, discontinuous phenomena, and sudden transitions among multiple equilibria. Recent work has begun to explore the behavior of large, non-linear, dynamic and chaotic systems, and concepts like system vulnerability and resilience.
Environmental Aspects
Development in the environmental sense is a recent concern relating to the need to manage scarce natural resources in a prudent manner – because human welfare ultimately depends on ecological services. Ignoring safe ecological limits could undermine long-run prospects for development. Recent literature covers links among environment, growth and sustainable development.
Environmental sustainability focuses on overall viability and normal functioning of natural systems. For ecological systems, sustainability is defined by a comprehensive, multiscale, dynamic, hierarchical measure of resilience, vigor and organization. Resilience is the ability of ecosystems to persist despite external shocks, i.e., the amount of disruption that will cause an ecosystem to switch from one system state to another. An ecosystem state is defined by its internal structure and set of mutually re-inforcing processes. Vigor is associated with the primary productivity or growth of an ecosystem. Organization depends on both complexity and structure of the system. For example, a multicellular organism like a human being is more highly organized than a single-celled amoeba. Higher states of organization imply lower levels of entropy. Thus, the second law of thermodynamics requires that sustainability of complex organisms and systems depend on the use of low-entropy energy derived from their environment, which is returned as (less useful) high-entropy energy.
Natural resource degradation, pollution and loss of biodiversity are detrimental because they reduce resilience, increase vulnerability, and undermine system health. The notions of a safe threshold and carrying capacity are important, to avoid catastrophic ecosystem collapse. Sustainability may be also linked to the normal functioning and longevity of a nested hierarchy of ecological and socioeconomic systems, ordered according to scale – e.g., a human community would consist of many individuals, who are themselves composed of a large number of discrete cells. Gunderson and Holling use the term ‘panarchy’ to denote such a hierarchy of systems and their adaptive cycles across scales. A system at a given level is able to operate in its stable (sustainable) mode, because it is protected by slower and more conservative changes in the super-system above it, while being simultaneously invigorated and energized by faster changes taking place in sub-systems below it.
Sustainable development is not necessarily synonymous with maintaining the ecological status quo. A coupled ecological-socioeconomic system could evolve, while maintaining levels of biodiversity that guarantee resilience of ecosystems on which future human consumption and production depend.
Social Aspects
Social development usually refers to improvements in both individual well-being and overall social welfare resulting from increases in social capital – typically, the accumulation of capacity enabling individuals and communities to work together. According to North, the institutional component of social capital involves formal laws as well as traditional or informal understandings that govern behavior, while the organizational component is embodied in individuals and communities operating within these institutional arrangements. The quantity and quality of social interactions underlying human existence (including levels of mutual trust, and shared social norms and values), determine the stock of social capital. Thus, social capital grows with greater use and erodes through disuse, unlike economic and environmental capital, which are depreciated or depleted by use. We note that some forms of social capital may be harmful (e.g., cooperation within criminal gangs).
There is also an important element of equity and poverty alleviation (see below). Thus, the social dimension of development includes protective strategies that reduce vulnerability, improve equity and ensure that basic needs are met. Future social development will require socio-political institutions that can adapt to meet the challenges of globalization. The latter often undermines traditional coping mechanisms that have evolved in the past (especially to protect disadvantaged groups).
Social sustainability parallels environmental sustainability. Reducing vulnerability and maintaining the ability of socio-cultural systems to withstand shocks, is also important. Enhancing human capital (through education) and strengthening social values, institutions, and governance are key aspects. Many harmful changes occur slowly, and their long-term effects are often overlooked in socio-economic analysis. Preserving cultural capital and diversity worldwide, strengthening social cohesion, and reducing destructive conflicts, are integral elements of this approach. An important aspect involves empowerment and broader participation through subsidiarity – i.e., decentralization of decision-making to the lowest (or most local) level at which it is still effective. In summary, for both ecological and socioeconomic systems, the emphasis is on improving system health and its dynamic ability to adapt to change across a range of spatial and temporal scales, rather than the conservation of some ‘ideal’ static state.
Poverty and Equity
Poverty and equity are two important issues, which have social, economic and environmental dimensions (see Figure 1). Over 2.8 billion people (almost half the global population) live on less than US$2 per day, and 1.2 billion barely survive on under US$1 per day. The top 20 percentile of the world’s population consumes about 83 percent of total output, while the bottom 20 percentile consumes only 1.4 percent. Income disparities are worsening – the per capita ratio between the richest and the poorest 20 percentile groups was 30 to 1 in 1960 and over 80 to 1 by 1995.
Equity is an ethical and usually people-oriented concept with primarily social, and some economic and environmental dimensions. It focuses on the basic fairness of both decision-making processes and outcomes. Equity may be assessed in terms of several generic approaches, including parity, proportionality, priority, utilitarianism, and Rawlsian distributive justice. Societies normally seek to achieve equity (or fairness) by balancing and combining several of these criteria.
Sen states that poverty alleviation, entitlements, improved income distribution and intra-generational (or spatial) equity are key aspects of economic policies seeking to increase overall human welfare. Broadly speaking, economic efficiency provides guidance on producing and consuming goods and services more efficiently, but is unable to provide a means of choosing (from a social perspective) among alternative patterns of consumption which are efficient. Equity principles provide better tools for making judgments about such choices.
Social equity is also linked to sustainability, because grossly unfair distributions of income and social benefits are unlikely to be lasting in the long run. Equity will be strengthened by enhancing pluralism and grass-roots participation in decision-making, and by empowering disadvantaged groups. Arrow et al state that in the long-term, inter-generational equity is vital, where both equity and efficiency aspects are affected by the economic discount rate. The sustainomics framework outlines methods of reconciling potential conflicts between equity and economic efficiency.
Equity in the environmental sense has received recent attention because of disproportionately greater environmental damages suffered by poor groups. Thus, poverty alleviation efforts are being broadened (beyond raising monetary incomes), to address the degraded environmental and social conditions facing the poor.
In summary, both equity and poverty have economic, as well as social and environmental dimensions, and therefore, they need to be assessed using a comprehensive set of indicators. Economic policies should emphasise expanding employment and gainful opportunities for poor people through growth, improving access to markets, and increasing both assets and education. Social policies need to focus on empowerment and inclusion, by making institutions more responsive to the poor and removing barriers that exclude disadvantaged groups. Environmental measures to help poor people might seek to reduce their vulnerability to disasters, crop failures, loss of employment, sickness, economic shocks, etc. Thus, an important objective of poverty alleviation is to provide poor people with assets (e.g., social, natural and economic), that will reduce their vulnerability, and increase the capacity for both short-run coping and longer-run adaptation to external shocks. The foregoing ideas blend with the sustainable livelihoods approach, which focuses on access to portfolios of assets, capacity to withstand shocks, gainful employment, and social processes.
An even broader non-anthropocentric approach to equity involves the concept of fairness in the treatment of non-human forms of life or even inanimate nature. One view asserts that humans have the responsibility of prudent ‘stewardship’ over nature, which goes beyond mere rights of usage.
Consistent integration of economic, social and environmental considerations
We begin by comparing the concepts of ecological, social and economic sustainability. Maintaining the set of opportunities is as important as the preservation of the asset base. The preservation of biodiversity maintains options and allows the system to retain resilience by protecting it from external shocks, in the same manner that preservation of the capital stock protects economic assets for future consumption. Differences emerge because under the economic definition, a society that consumes its fixed capital without replacement is not sustainable, whereas using an ecological approach, loss of resilience implies a reduction in the self-organization of the system, but not necessarily a loss in productivity. In the case of social systems, resilience depends on the capacity of human societies to adapt and continue functioning in the face of stress and shocks. Socio-cultural and ecological sustainability are linked because of the organizational similarities between human societies and ecological systems, and the parallels between biodiversity and cultural diversity. In the longer-term, the concept of co-evolution of social, economic and ecological systems within a larger, more complex adaptive system, provides useful insights regarding harmonious integration of the various elements of sustainable development (see Figure 1).
According to Munasinghe, it is important to integrate and reconcile the economic, social and environmental aspects within a holistic and balanced sustainable development framework. Two broad approaches, based on the concepts of optimality and durability, are relevant for this purpose.
Optimality
The optimality-based approach has been widely used in economic analysis to generally maximize welfare (or utility), subject to the requirement that the stock of productive assets (or welfare itself) is non-decreasing in the long-term. This assumption is common to most sustainable economic growth models. The essence of the approach is illustrated by the simple example of maximization of the flow of aggregate welfare (W), cumulatively discounted over infinite time (t), as represented by the expression:
Here, W is a function of C (consumption), and Z (set of other relevant variables), while r is the discount rate. Side constraints may be imposed to satisfy sustainability needs – e.g., non-decreasing stocks of productive assets.
Some ecological models also optimize variables related to system vigor, like energy use, nutrient flow, or biomass production. In economic models, utility is often measured in terms of net benefits of economic activities. More sophisticated economic optimization approaches include environmental and social variables (e.g., by attempting to value environmental externalities, system resilience, etc). However, given the difficulties of quantifying and valuing many such ‘non-economic’ assets, the costs and benefits associated with market-based activities tend to dominate in most economic optimization models.
Basically, the optimal growth path maximizes economic output, while the sustainability requirement is met by ensuring non-decreasing stocks of assets. Some analysts support a ‘strong sustainability’ constraint, which requires separate preservation of each category of critical asset (e.g., manufactured, natural, socio-cultural and human capital), assuming that they are complements rather than substitutes. Other researchers have argued in favor of ‘weak sustainability,’ which seeks to maintain the aggregate monetary value of the total stock of assets, assuming that various asset types are substitutes and may be valued.
Side constraints are often necessary, because the optimization approach (including economic efficiency and valuation) may not be easily applied to ecological objectives like protecting biodiversity and improving resilience, or to social goals such as promoting equity and empowerment. Such environmental and social variables cannot be easily incorporated within a single valued objective function based on cost-benefit analysis. Thus, techniques like multi-criteria analysis may be required to facilitate trade-offs among non-commensurable variables. Moreover, the lagged price system might not anticipate irreversible environmental and social harm, and non-linear system responses that could lead to catastrophic collapse. Therefore, non-economic indicators of environmental and social status are helpful. The constraints on critical environmental and social indicators are proxies representing safe thresholds, which help to maintain the viability of those systems. Risk and uncertainty also necessitate the use of decision analysis tools.
Durability
The second broad integrative approach focuses primarily on sustaining the quality of life – e.g., by satisfying environmental, social and economic sustainability requirements. Such a framework favors ‘durable’ development paths that permit growth, but are not necessarily economically optimal. There is more willingness to trade off some economic optimality for the sake of greater safety (i.e., risk aversion), in order to stay within critical environmental, social and technical limits.
Economic system durability might require consumption levels to be maintained – i.e., per capita consumption that never falls below some minimum level, or is non-declining. Environmental and social durability requirements may be expressed in terms of indicators of ‘state’ that monitor the longevity and normal functioning of complex ecological, social and techno-economic systems. There is the likelihood of further interaction here due to linkages between the sustainability of social, ecological and techno-economic systems – e.g., social disruption and conflict could exacerbate damage to both ecological and techno-economic systems, and vice versa. By contrast, long-standing social norms in stable traditional societies have helped to protect the environment.
Durability encourages a holistic systemic viewpoint, which is important in sustainomics analysis. The self-organizing and internal structure of complex systems often make ‘the whole more durable (and valuable) than the sum of the parts’. A narrow definition of efficiency based on marginal analysis of individual components may be misleading. For example, it is more difficult to value the integrated functional diversity in a forest ecosystem than the individual species of trees and animals. Therefore, the former is more likely to fall victim to market failure (as an externality). Furthermore, even where correct environmental shadow prices prevail, some analysts point out that economic cost minimization could lead to homogenization and consequent reductions in system diversity. Broader systems analysis also helps to identify the benefits of cooperative structures and behavior, which a more partial analysis may neglect.
The possibility of many durable paths favors simulation-based methods, including consideration of alternative futures (rather than one optimal result). This approach parallels research on integrating human actors into ecological models, including multiple-agent modeling to account for heterogeneous behavior, bounded rationality leading to different perceptions and biases, and social interactions involving imitation, reciprocity and comparison.
In the durability approach, maintaining asset stocks enhances system sustainability, because various forms of capital are a bulwark that decreases vulnerability to external shocks and reduces irreversible harm, rather than merely producing more economic outputs. System vulnerability, resilience, vigor, organization and ability to adapt will depend dynamically on the capital endowment as well as the magnitude and rate of change of a shock.
Indicators
The status of asset stocks helps to assess whether development is becoming more sustainable. Therefore, it is important to identify relevant economic, social and environmental indicators, at different levels of aggregation ranging from the global/macro to local/micro. Indicators must be comprehensive in scope, multi-dimensional in nature (where appropriate), and account for spatial differences.
Measuring economic, environmental, human and social capital also raises various problems. Manufactured capital may be estimated using conventional neoclassical economic analysis. Market prices are useful when economic distortions are relatively low, while shadow prices could be applied in cases where market prices are unreliable. Natural capital needs to be quantified first in terms of key physical attributes. Typically, damage to natural capital may be assessed by the level of air pollution (e.g., concentrations of suspended particulate, sulfur dioxide or greenhouse gases), water pollution (e.g., biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) or chemical oxygen demand (COD)), and land degradation (e.g., soil erosion or deforestation). Then this physical damage could be valued using environmental and resource economics techniques. Human resource stocks are often measured by educational levels, productivity and earning potential. Social capital is more difficult to assess. Putnam described it as ‘horizontal associations’ among people, or social networks and associated behavioral norms and values, which affect the productivity of communities. Social capital may be viewed more broadly in terms of social structures, which facilitate the activities of agents in society – including both horizontal and vertical associations (like firms). An even wider definition is implied by the institutional approach that includes not only the mainly informal relationships implied by the earlier two views, but also more formal frameworks provided by governments, political systems, and legal provisions. Recent work has sought to distinguish between social and political capital (i.e., the networks of power and influence that link individuals and communities to the higher levels of decision-making).
Complementarity and convergence of optimal and durable approaches
The two approaches are often complementary in national economic management. For example, economy-wide policies involving both fiscal and monetary measures (e.g., taxes, subsidies, interest and foreign exchange rates) might be optimized using quantitative macroeconomic models. Nevertheless, decision-makers inevitably modify these economically ‘optimal’ policies before implementing them, to take into account other ‘durable’ sociopolitical considerations (like poverty alleviation, regional factors, etc.), which facilitate governance and stability. The determination of an appropriate target trajectory for future global greenhouse gas emissions provides another useful illustration of the interplay of durability and optimality. Climate change researchers are currently exploring the application of large and complex integrated assessment models that include coupled sub-models representing various ecological, geophysical and socioeconomic systems—with scope to test both optimality and durability approaches.
In practice, the two approaches point towards convergent solutions. First, wastes ought to be generated at rates within the assimilative capacity of the environment. Second, scarce renewable resources should be utilized at rates compatible with the natural rate of regeneration. Third, non-renewable resource use rates should depend on the substitutability between these resources and technological progress. Both wastes and natural resource inputs might be minimized, by moving from linear throughput to closed loop (or recycling) mode. Finally, inter- and intra-generational equity (especially poverty alleviation), pluralistic and consultative decision-making, and enhanced social values and institutions, are important additional aspects.
Tools for Sustainable Development Analysis and Assessment
Some important tools for sustainable development analysis and assessment include: the Action Impact Matrix (AIM) for prioritising the economic, environmental and social interactions of various macroeconomic and sectoral development policies; advanced cost-benefit analysis (CBA) including economic valuation of environmental and social impacts; multi-criteria analysis (MCA), especially in cases where some impacts cannot be easily quantified in monetary terms; and green accounting.
The Action Impact Matrix (AIM) process is the key link from initial data gathering to practical policy application and feedback. Critical sustainable development concerns are incorporated into conventional national development strategy and goals in two main ways: an upward link where sustainable development issues are embedded in the macro-strategy of a country via the medium- to long-term development path; and a downward link where sustainable development issues are integrated into the national development strategy in the short- to medium-term, by carrying out sustainable development assessments (SDA) of micro-level projects and policies.
Sustainable Development Assessment (SDA) is another important tool to ensure balanced analysis of both development and sustainability concerns in both policies and projects. The ‘economic’ component of SDA is based on conventional economic and financial analysis (including cost-benefit analysis). The other two key components are environmental and social assessment (EA and SA). SDA also includes poverty assessment. Thus, SDA seeks to integrate and harmonize economic, environmental and social analyses.
Green accounting includes material and energy balances (MEB) and greened national accounts, notably the System of integrated Environmental and Economic Accounts (SEEA). Physical MEB assess material throughput and the dematerialization of the economy as an ecological sustainability concept. The monetary part of the SEEA measures produced and natural capital maintenance, which reflects an economic sustainability concept.

Balancing The Biodiversity Account

Fall 2003


When you write a check for more money than you have in your account, the check bounces and you get a “nasty-gram” from the bank, which assesses a fee as a penalty for overdrawing. The solution? Refrain from writing checks until you can deposit more funds.

If only the answer to dwindling resources was always so simple. When natural resources—such as habitats and the species they support—are over-exploited, destroyed, or lost, they may be gone forever. We can’t make a new “deposit.” The resulting loss of biodiversity could lead to unknown and potentially catastrophic consequences for plant and animal species, for our environment, and ultimately for us. But how can people become informed and motivated enough to keep them from “overdrawing” our natural resources?

Ke Chung Kim has made a career of finding answers to this question. The entomologist and director of Penn State’s Center for BioDiversity Research believes that the only way to convince a public whose attitudes may be shaped by apathy, skepticism, or self-interest is to link the importance of biodiversity conservation to people’s everyday lives.

“Surveys show that fewer than 50 percent of people have even heard the term ‘biodiversity,’” Kim says. “Of those, only about 30 percent really know what it is. Many people think biodiversity only relates to the rainforests and has nothing to do with them. To grab people’s attention and help them understand the importance of biodiversity conservation, we have to find ways to make it relevant by connecting it to their daily lives.”

So Kim set out to create an educational publication that was attractive and readable. The 20-page publication, Biodiversity: Our Living World–Your Life Depends on It, is a primer packed with information, factoids, and illustrations about the natural world and the species that inhabit it.

The publication defines biodiversity as “the variety and variation of all species of plants, animals, fungi, and microbes, including their genetic makeup, their ecological roles, and their interrelationships in biological communities throughout the world ecosystems.” To move beyond this abstract definition and drive home the point of why biodiversity matters to you and me, Kim came up with the concept of a “biodiversity account,” the number of species needed to produce an item for human consumption or to maintain ecological services that support humans. The reader learns how multitudes of species interact to make possible the food we eat, the clothes we wear, and the houses in which we live.

“For example, let’s look at a hamburger dinner with French fries and apple pie for dessert,” Kim explains. “Obviously, to have ground beef, you need a cow. The hamburger bun requires wheat flour and yeast, which is a fungus. For French fries, you need potatoes and corn or soybean oil to fry them. To make ketchup, mustard, pickles, and other hamburger fixings you need additional plants and plant-derived spices. The apple pie filling contains sugar and one or more varieties of apples and spices, and the crust contains wheat flour and vegetable shortening.

“You might have 15 or 20 species just on your plate,” he continues. “But the cow might eat stored grain and several of 17 species of pasture plants, including grasses, legumes, and weeds. To grow apples, potatoes, and tomatoes you need pollinators, such as honey bees. All plants grow in ecosystems that depend on many species—such as insects, spiders, earthworms, fungi, and bacteria—for energy and nutrient cycling. Add it all up and the biodiversity account for this one meal might be more than 400 species.”

Kim’s publication contains several such examples. The number of tree species needed to build the average house? At least 50, and that doesn’t count the hundreds of species of fungi, bacteria, animals, and plants that support and depend on the forest ecosystems where those trees grow.

What about that tuna fish you ate for lunch yesterday? It ate mostly mackerels and herrings, which in turn fed on dozens of species of smaller fish, crustaceans, squids, worms, and plankton. Thus, the biodiversity account of tuna includes easily 50 species of animals as food. “If pollution or other human activities harm these marine species, tuna populations can suffer,” says Kim.

“The bottom line,” he says, “is that biodiversity is the basis upon which ecological systems operate. One or two species lost may not seem significant, but when a particular species that’s crucial to maintaining the system disappears, the system could malfunction and eventually collapse. We don’t know at what level of loss this will happen, and figuring that out is a challenge for science in the future. But we can’t wait until then. We may already have lost species that we didn’t even know existed. We need to figure out what we have and save as much as we can.”

Kim is involved in several efforts to do just that. Besides founding the Center for BioDiversity Research, he leads the Pennsylvania Invertebrates Biodiversity Project, a survey designed to identify as many invertebrate species as possible in the state. He has conducted biodiversity assessments for the National Park Service and for the Indiantown Gap National Guard Training Center. He is curator of Penn State’s Frost Entomological Museum, which is a source of important reference collections for biodiversity research related to arthropods, and he chairs the DMZ Forum, a group that has worked to maintain the Demilitarized Zone in his native Korea as a biodiversity preserve.

Kim also has been instrumental in building an infrastructure for biodiversity conservation policy within and across state government departments. Several state agencies provided funding and support for Biodiversity: Our Living World–Your Life Depends on It, and the Department of Environmental Protection has used the publication widely in its educational outreaches, including with K-12 classes in school districts around the state and in connection with 2002 Earth Day festivities.

In Kim’s mind, such public education is the first priority in the campaign to save our valuable biodiversity. “Unless the public understands what’s at stake, none of our other efforts will go very far.”

____________________________

Ke Chung Kim is professor of entomology, curator of the Frost Entomological Museum, and director of the Center for BioDiversity Research. Funding for Biodiversity: Our Living World–Your Life Depends on It was provided by the Pennsylvania Wild Resources Conservation Fund, with support from the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the Pennsylvania Game Commission, and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. It is available online at pubs.cas.psu.edu/freepubs/uf017.html.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE “BIODIVERSITY: SCIENCE AND GOVERNANCE”:

The International Biodiversity Conference, organized by the French Ministry of Research, opened Monday at the headquarters of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on the theme “Biodiversity: Science and Governance.” Participants heard opening statements in the morning, and convened in Plenary in the afternoon to consider challenges regarding biodiversity, science and governance.

OPENING SESSION

François d’Aubert, French Minister Delegate for Research, opened the Conference, and welcomed participants.

Noting the outcomes of the World Conference on Disaster Reduction, held prior to the Conference, Koïchiro Matsuura, UNESCO Director-General, highlighted the potential of healthy ecosystems in disaster reduction, and called for improved earth observation systems. He expressed hope that the UN Decade for Education for Sustainable Development will help connecting science and society. Advocating an ongoing dialogue between scientists and decision makers, he called for: additional research; involvement of the private sector and civil society, including local and indigenous communities; capacity building; and conflict prevention.

Klaus Toepfer, Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), stressed the impact of biodiversity loss on humankind, and said preserving healthy ecosystems is crucial for achieving the Millennium Development Goals and implementing sustainable strategies for land use, industry and tourism. He stressed the interlinkages between climate change, desertification and biodiversity loss, and called for investments in capacity building and in coherent, coordinated and policy-relevant science.

Hamdallah Zedan, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), noted that despite increased recognition of biodiversity’s value, knowledge about biodiversity loss is limited. He highlighted the challenge faced by the international community to achieve the 2010 target to significantly reduce the current rate of biodiversity loss, and called for stronger international cooperation and effective communication on biodiversity loss and its effects.

Mohammed Valli Moosa, President of the World Conservation Union – IUCN, stressed direct links between biodiversity loss and human activities, warning that more than 15,000 species are threatened with extinction according to the IUCN Red List. He suggested a framework to put biodiversity at the center stage of human activities on the basis of four key elements: people around the world; science; regulations and laws at all levels; and the market force.

Bertrand Collomb, Chairman of Lafarge and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, said the business sector has recognized the importance of sustainability and nature conservation and that biodiversity-related projects can improve a company’s public image. He stressed the need for partnerships, determination and consistency of actions, as well as the role of governments in setting appropriate frameworks for action.

Noting that good politics should be based on good science, Stavros Dimas, European Commissioner for the Environment, said the EU will continue to work on integrating environmental concerns into its policies and support funding for environment programmes, and stressed the need for increased action to achieve the 2010 target, prioritization and mobilizing support as well as building scientific capacity and better communicating scientific issues regarding biodiversity.

Nicolas Hulot, President of the Nicolas Hulot Foundation, said the Conference should aim at ensuring coherence among policies and actions rather than raising awareness. He noted that there is no conflict between various interests involved in biodiversity, and stressed the need for cooperation, placing society at the heart of concerns and actions, and new forms of solidarity.

Matsuura, on behalf of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, stressed that biodiversity is essential to life, and called upon countries which have not already done so, to ratify the CBD. He said biodiversity conservation is not only the responsibility of governments, but also of non-governmental organizations, the private sector and all the Earth’s inhabitants.

Edward Wilson, Harvard University, said there is overwhelming scientific evidence of man’s adverse impact on biodiversity, much of which is still unknown to science. He reasoned that exploration and conservation are not only crucial, but also cost-effective and technically possible, and called for fact-based and ethical decision making. He stressed that poverty inhibits conservation, and cited that “man is defined not by what he creates, but by what he chooses not to destroy.”

Wangari Maathai, Assistant Minister for Environment and Natural Resources of Kenya, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, reviewed lessons learned from two mountain ecosystems in Kenya with regard to biodiversity loss and its impacts on human societies, while emphasizing the success of rehabilitation through reforestation under governmental guidance. She said political will is the key in taking actions to conserve biodiversity.

Stating the importance of balancing economic development and conservation of natural resources, Abdullah Badawi, Prime Minister of Malaysia, highlighted crucial issues regarding biodiversity conservation, including: capacity building; a dialogue on biodiversity governance; negotiations of an access and benefit-sharing regime under the CBD; intellectual property rights; and implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

Marc Ravalomanana, President of the Republic of Madagascar, highlighted the importance of the Conference’s topics to his country, noting its biodiversity wealth. He stressed the need to reconcile the needs of rapid economic growth with those of preserving outstanding biological wealth, arguing that sustainable development, the protection of nature and good governance are interlinked. He noted gaps between North and South regarding scientific expertise.

Jacques Chirac, President of the French Republic, stressed that the human fate is bound to that of other species, and proposed creating an intergovernmental panel to assess trends in biodiversity and developing a worldwide network of experts. He noted that France has incorporated an Environment Charter in its Constitution, highlighted France’s biodiversity-related policies, and proposed hosting in Paris a high-level seminar on intellectual property rights as they relate to biodiversity. He stressed the need for urgent measures to achieve the 2010 target.

PLENARY

The first plenary session, chaired by Peter Raven, Missouri Botanical Garden, addressed challenges faced by science and governance with regard to biodiversity. The session included a roundtable.

Chair Raven noted that more is known about the moon than about the Earth’s rainforests, and called for more research and decisive steps, actions and strategies based on individual responsibility.

Jacques Blondel, French National Centre for Scientific Research, stressed that preserving biodiversity today will guarantee its evolutionary potential, and that the loss of biodiversity is irreversible. Noting that the Earth is currently experiencing a period of mass extinction, he said the challenge lies in determining how the loss of species affects their ecosystems, and in predicting how ecosystem functions and services will be affected by future extinctions. Noting that some irreversible thresholds have already been passed, he expressed hope that these predictions will positively influence decision making. Blondel said conserving biodiversity is an ethical question, and called for an integration of natural and human sciences. Stressing that economic development can only be sustainable in a well-functioning ecosystem, and that development cannot be sustainable when it is not shared, he concluded that we need to radically revise our way of life.

Michel Loreau, Chair of the Scientific Committee of the Conference, spoke on challenges regarding biodiversity. Addressing the question “why does biodiversity matter?”, he explained that humankind depends on biodiversity as a source of goods for direct use, ecosystem services, as well as natural heritage, aesthetic, spiritual, cultural and recreational values. He said scientific challenges include assessing: how much biodiversity there is on Earth; how and why biodiversity is changing; the ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity; and how we can best manage and protect biodiversity. Loreau explained that challenges for governance include: recognizing the importance of biodiversity as a global environmental issue; educating and informing citizens; developing coordinated research and supporting funding agencies; using available knowledge to take immediate action; integrating biodiversity conservation and sustainable use in social and economic development; and establishing an intergovernmental mechanism to synthesize scientific knowledge. He said a draft “Paris Appeal of Scientists in Favour of Biodiversity” will be circulated and finalized during the Conference.

Speaking about globalization of the economy and current biodiversity changes, Claude Martin, Director-General of WWF International, quoted a WWF report using the living planet index and humanity’s ecological footprint over the past 40 years to show that globalization has tremendous impacts on biodiversity. He underscored that, to address this challenge, governments need to set up long-term goals integrating environmental concerns into the development process. Martin also highlighted the need for a fundamental change in thinking. Regarding genetically modified organisms (GMOs), he said while GMOs might increase food production, without internationally established standards, they often pose risks to biodiversity. He commended a statement on the need for returning benefits to local and indigenous communities where scientific research results are generated.

Cristian Samper, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, said our knowledge of biodiversity has greatly expanded, but biodiversity is still declining. He noted that while most of the world’s biodiversity is found in developing countries, developed countries benefit most from it and have the knowledge and capacity to prevent biodiversity’s decline. He noted the challenge in using scientific knowledge regarding biodiversity’s response to change to recover species from the brink of extinction and prevent further degradation of ecosystems. He called for synergies between biodiversity-related conventions, and advocated increased attention to: coherence between global and national policies; effective monitoring and indicators; implementation and compliance; and access and benefit sharing. He called for clear rules for access, traceability and transparency, but cautioned against policies that become a barrier to biodiversity research. Regarding an intergovernmental panel for biodiversity, Samper proposed other ways to strengthen scientific input into the decision-making process, including: building bridges within the scientific community; seeking interlinkages with other topics; building national and regional capacity; investing in basic and policy-relevant science; and strengthening existing mechanisms, such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Highlighting the amount of information gathered in natural history museums worldwide, he said museums’ responsibilities include: mobilizing information contained in collections and literature through mechanisms such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility; generating new knowledge through research; developing education and outreach; and building capacity and collaboration for biodiversity with an emphasis on countries of origin.

Roundtable Chair Robert Watson, World Bank, invited panelists to focus on the greatest challenge to a sustainable use of biodiversity, whether biodiversity conservation can be reconciled with rapid economic growth, and reasons for discrepancies between civil society’s care about nature and destruction of it.

Jean-François Dehecq, President of Sanofi-Aventis, outlined steps and issues associated with discovering and exploiting natural compounds for developing drugs, noting that therapeutic progress may be undermined by the fact that patenting of biodiversity still remains unresolved at the international level.

Maathai said the greatest challenge is to convince decision makers and society that biodiversity is a priority, stressing that in spite of the fact that humans are better informed than 30 years ago, they continue destroying species with the prospect of their own destruction. She recalled that the consequences of current destruction will be experienced by future generations.

Russell Mittermeier, President of Conservation International, noted that France has the world’s largest number of hotspots. He said megadiverse countries and biodiversity hotspots should be priorities for action to achieve the 2010 target, and stressed the role of protected areas in conserving biodiversity.

Harison Randriarimanana, Minister of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries of Madagascar, stated that it is possible to reconcile biodiversity conservation with rapid economic growth and poverty alleviation in countries like Madagascar. However, he said this will not happen unless people living in poverty, decision makers and scientists are brought together for action.

Wilson stressed the role of education in bridging the gap between science, policy and the public for biodiversity conservation, and said lack of an ethical code and moral standards for human activities are one of the reasons why human actions tend to compromise nature.

World Food Day 2004 Highlights the Importance of Biodiversity to Global Food Security

WASHINGTON and ROME, Oct. 15 /PRNewswire/ -- Biological diversity is one
of the keys to ending world hunger, Dr. Jacques Diouf, Director-General of the
UN Food and Agriculture Organization said today.
He was speaking at a ceremony marking World Food Day 2004, which falls on
the anniversary of the foundation of FAO in 1945 and is observed in Rome and
in some 150 countries around the world. This year's World Food Day theme is:
"Biodiversity for Food Security."
"Our planet abounds with life and it is this great diversity that holds
one of the keys to ending hunger," Dr. Diouf told high-ranking officials and
representatives from FAO Member States, international organizations, other UN
agencies, NGOs, civil society and farmers' groups.
In his address, he underlined the need to maintain biodiversity in nature
and on farms to ensure to all people a sustainable access to enough
diversified and nutritious food.
"But we are also raising an alarm," he added. "FAO estimates that about
three-quarters of the genetic diversity of agricultural crops has been lost
over the last century. Just 12 crops and 14 animal species now provide most
of the world's food."

A key to survival
"For many rural families, the sustainable use of local biodiversity is
their key to survival. It allows them to exploit marginal lands and ensure a
minimum level of food production even when faced with extremely harsh
conditions," Dr. Diouf said.
"Global food security depends not just on protecting the world's genetic
resources, but also on ensuring that these resources remain available to all,"
he pointed out.
"Preserving the world's agricultural biodiversity needs to be viewed as a
joint effort involving farmers, commercial plant breeders and the scientific
community," the FAO Director-General also said.
In his keynote speech, World Food Day 2004 special guest President Ferenc
Madl of Hungary said: "The international community should spare no effort to
implement the Millennium Development Goals for the benefit of all."
Mr. Madl called on all countries to "create conditions to facilitate
access to genetic resources for environmentally sound uses."
He also said that his country, which was among the countries that welcomed
and ratified the FAO International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture, is "a leading place in Central Europe to breed traditional
and new plant varieties."
The Treaty, which entered into force this year, is a binding international
instrument that secures the conservation and sustainable utilization of the
world's agricultural genetic diversity. It guarantees that farmers and
breeders have access to genetic materials they need and it also ensures that
farmers receive a fair and equitable share of the benefits derived from their
work.

Message from the Pope
A message on the importance of biodiversity from Pope John Paul II was
read by Monsignor Renato Volante, Permanent Observer of the Holy See to FAO.
The Pope stated that the World Food Day observances contribute to liberate
humanity from the scourge of hunger and malnutrition.
Statements were also delivered in succession, by Mr. Paolo Scarpa Bonazza
Buora, Italy's Undersecretary of State for Agricultural and Forestry Policies,
Mr. Edouard Saouma, former Director-General of FAO, and Mr. Mamadou Cissokho,
Honorary President of the Network of Peasant Organizations and Producers of
West Africa and of the National Council of Senegal for Dialogue and Rural
Cooperation.
Dr. Diouf awarded a special FAO Medal to his predecessor, Mr. Saouma, and
World Food Day 2004 Medals to the three first prize winners of the World Food
Day poster competition, organized by the United Nations Women's Guild.
During the same ceremony, Dr. Diouf introduced the newly appointed FAO
Goodwill Ambassador, Italian ballerina Carla Fracci, who is considered one of
the greatest classical dancers of the 20th century. Carla Fracci is now
Director of the Balletto dell'Opera of Rome.
FAO Goodwill Ambassadors are distinguished women and men of talent who,
through their work and in their daily lives, help to focus global attention on
the need to free the world from hunger and poverty.
A musical presentation followed. Internationally renowned Albanian
violonist Anyla Kraja performed "Schindler's list" by J. Williams, while
Angolan singer and dancer Tasha Rodrigues and her musical group performed two
songs from her last CD "Kyra Kyra."

Farmers' event
During World Food Day's observance at FAO headquarters, a farmers' event
also took place as well as a civil society forum. For the first time on World
Food Day, farmers from different parts of the world had a chance to speak
about their experience in enhancing biodiversity and increasing food
production in a sustainable way.
Elsewhere, various events were organized to celebrate World Food Day's
theme. In the United States, sponsored by the U.S. National Committee for
World Food Day, hundreds of WFD teleconference sites were set up at colleges
and at U.S. Embassies across the world. Some colleges organized a week-long
observance.
In Sweden, substantive seminars for parliamentarians, the media and the
scientific community were organized. A conference on the importance of
biodiversity took place in Stockholm and a scientific seminar on biological
diversity was organized today at the University of Agriculture, in Uppsala.
In India, essay competitions were organized in schools in Delhi. In
several European and Middle Eastern capitals, schoolchildren competed in
drawing contests on biodiversity and food security

Biodiversity of the coastal zone

An example of activities aimed at the conservation of biological diversity within the coastal zone is the 'Yuntolovsky' reserve in North West Russia. The reserve is located in the North West part of the city of St Petersburg, and borders the Finnish Bay in the south. The rivers of the Yuntolovka and Kamenka are in the West and East. For a number of years this coastal area was located within the limits of Saint-Petersburg and has been central in the conflict of interests between urban developers, industrial enterprises, yacht clubs and owners of cottage plots.

The Yuntolovsky is a continuation of the natural coastal belt in the East and plays an important role in conservation of coastal landscapes in the eastern part of the Finnish Bay and the water area of the Lakhtinsky Bay, which is the habitat of rare species of flora, birds and fish breeding grounds. The whole area of the Lakhtinsky Bay represents a unique natural phenomenon: spring marshes, black alder swamps, habitat of rare flora species, such as honeywort have been included in the Red Book.

History

In the early 20s scientists and experts paid attention to this unique territory and came up with an initiative to create a natural reserve. However, for a variety of reasons, it wasn't until the early 90s that the possibility for implementation of this idea presented itself.

During 1990-1991, a number of Resolutions issued by the Board of Leningrad Council of People's Deputies, led to the creation of Yuntolovsky reserve and the establishment of its temporary borders. The Resolutions also recommended that the Executive Committee undertake a number of specific actions aimed at encouraging the organization of the reserve, but this was never taken forward.

In 1996, the Directorate for Environment Protection within the Saint-Petersburg administration, and European Union Coastal Protection Division entered an agreement on development of the Management Plan with respect to the Yuntolovsky reserve. There was a considerable experience gained by European countries in the field of organisation and management of natural territories subject to a specific protection approach.

Managment plan
The preparation and implementation of the Management Plan represented a practical step towards sustainable important principles specified in various international documents on sustainable development that were adopted development of the city, as it took into account a range of very in Rio de Janeiro in 1992:
Conservation of biological diversity The territory of Yuntolovsky reserve being part of the Baltic flyway of migrating birds, their camping and feeding place, has gained significant importance at international level. Many flora and fauna species have now been entered into the Red Book of the Baltic Region and Russia:

conservation of wetlands;
conservation of water resources- restoration and conservation of the reserve, which is directly linked to the Finnish Bay, facilitates improving the ecological conditions of water area in the Baltic region;
resolution of social issues - the above mentioned territory is used for recreational purposes encouraging creation of employment opportunities;
development of ecological education of the population - The Management Plan stipulated the use of the territory for the purpose of scientific research by 2002 and was marked by the establishment of an informational ecological centre incorporating a nature museum available to students, school children and the adult population as part of an education programme.
The major objective of the Yungolovsky Reserve Management Plan is to achieve the set tasks and create optimal conditions for the natural territory and the city to co-exist together in the best way.

A number of parallel studies were also carried out in the new state of the territory. This later provided grounds for formulating proposals and finalizing a legal procedures for establishing borders of the reserve with the approval of the governor of Saint-Petersburg. An administration was set up to supervise the natural territories of the city, subject to a specific protection approach.

Yungolovsky Ecological Centre

In 1997, the residents of the Primorsky administrative district within Saint-Petersburg where the Yuntolovsky reserve is located, prepared and approved the District Agenda for the 21st century. The latter places particular focus on plans in respect to conservation of biological diversity in the district and development of the reserve. The residents of the district established their own public organization called the 'Yungolovsky Ecological Centre'. They were committed to resolve the issues of improving the territory of the reserve and adjacent areas, as well as promoting ecological awareness. The Centre is now open and conducting training courses on conservation issues including biological diversity. The Centre also arranges excursions on the territory of the reserve and organizes seminars and workshops on the problems associated with conservation of nature and development of ecological tourism.

Visitors to the centre take an active part in numerous activities aimed at improving the territory surrounding the reserve and restoring plant growth in its buffer zone that has been damaged as a result of intensive development in the district.

In 1999, an ornithological tower was placed on the border of the reserve providing free access to the public. Information stands were put up along the perimeter of the territory highlighting details such as the borders of the reserve, its biological value and code of behaviour that had to be observed. The ecological park offers nature walks, recreational facilities and informational materials.

GIS

In 2002, with the assistance of the Danish Agency for Environment Protection, a geographical information system was developed to provide a way of monitoring the preserve condition. This enables one to identify the most topical issues with respect to its development. Hence, as a result of monitoring activities undertaken over the last few years, some reduction in the productivity of the available feeding resources for the waterfowl has been observed on the territory of the Lakhtinsky Bay. This triggered the development of the restoration programme. The programme for restoration of shoal waters has been prepared for the northern part of the Lakhtinsky Bay. The latter was damaged as a result of hydrotechnical works, performed on the rivers flowing into the Bay. Apart from the involvement of the local industrial enterprises who are financing such works, their operation has been made a subject of stringent control. This comes from the point of view of nature-orientated bodies in the city, as a measure to try and protect this unique territory from possible adverse effects.

Biodiversity partnership

Defenders of Wildlife has long been a leader in the conservation of wolves and other endangered species. While Defenders takes great pride in that work, the organization's mission is to protect all native wildlife in its natural habitat and to secure biodiversity throughout the country, not only in places with large expanses of protected land and populations of large predators. As communities grow and their borders expand, Defenders' mission has led the organization to examine the land use planning process and its effect on wildlife outside of parks, preserves and refuges.

Biodiversity has been defined as "the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, the communities and ecosystems in which they occur, and the ecological and evolutionary processes that keep them functioning, yet ever changing and adapting" (Noss and Cooperrider 1994). That diversity is essential to the biological processes that sustain life. The quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, the soil we cultivate, the plants and animals we depend on for food and fiber, and the landscape we enjoy for recreation — the fundamentals of our civilization, economy, and health all depend on biodiversity.

Habitat loss is now the most significant threat to biodiversity. As many other reports and scientific papers have shown, the loss, degradation and alteration of habitat are the primary factors responsible for the worldwide decline in numbers of wild animals and plants. While many people think habitat destruction and loss of biodiversity are problems confined to exceptionally species-rich areas like the tropics, they are very real problems here in the United States. Uncontrolled growth, often referred to as "sprawl", plagues communities across the country. It permanently fragments contiguous habitat into marginal pieces of land. Habitat loss and diminishing biodiversity may be the most urgent environmental problems we now face.

In December 2000, to help draw attention to the importance of biodiversity, problems caused by habitat loss, and the potential role of land use planning in solving the current conservation crisis, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation awarded a grant to Defenders of Wildlife, NatureServe, the Environmental Law Institute and Island Press. The Duke Foundation asked the four groups, together known as the Consortium on Biodiversity and Land Use, to examine the interaction of biodiversity, habitat protection and land use planning in a program of research, publishing, and public outreach.

To investigate the vital role conservation planning can play in connecting land use planning and biodiversity preservation, and as part of work funded by the Duke Foundation grant, Defenders of Wildlife sponsored a two-day workshop at the Wye River Conference Center in Queenstown, Maryland from February 28 to March 1, 2002. The workshop brought together over three dozen state and local land use planners, government officials, and representatives of conservation organizations from around the country, who are all involved in innovative efforts to integrate biodiversity and land use planning at the state, regional and/or local level. This report describes their discussions and the broad range of views expressed at the workshop.

One of the goals of the workshop and this report is to help promote comprehensive conservation planning by stimulating interest in ecosystem-based land use plans designed to facilitate environmental restoration, protect and conserve wildlife habitat and other natural resources. Workshop participants agreed that conservation planning presents an opportunity to make the United States' approach to conservation more proactive. Given the importance of preserving natural habitats and biodiversity, the information and insights gathered at the workshop will be relevant to communities throughout the country.

Biodiversity at Risk
The world is now in the midst of an extinction crisis. Many species have been driven to the brink of extinction or beyond, and we are in danger of losing much of the biodiversity that has made our quality of life possible. According to The Nature Conservancy and NatureServe, more than 6,700 animal and plant species in the United States are vulnerable to extinction (Stein et al. 2000). The federal Endangered Species Act currently lists only about 1,300 of those species as endangered or threatened. Losing these species could severely affect the diversity of life and the biological processes on which all living things, including humans, depend.

Populations of some species protected by the Endangered Species Act are rising, but many others are not. In 1996, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported to Congress that, despite protection under the Endangered Species Act and other laws, less than 40 percent of listed species are stable or improving. Nearly 30 percent of those listed in the early 1970s with the Act's inception continue to decline (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996).

Preventing extinction and preserving species' ecological roles requires protection of their natural habitats. The most significant threat to biodiversity now lies in the loss, degradation and fragmentation of the habitats animals and plants need to survive (Wilcove et al. 2000). According the Natural Resources Conservation Service's Natural Resources Inventory, an estimated 2.2 million acres of land are lost to development in the United States each year (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2000). The Department of the Interior reports that more than half the nation's wetlands have been filled since the American Revolution (Dahl 1990). In the Tucson area of Arizona alone, an estimated 6,400 acres of Sonoran Desert are now being converted to human use annually. A 1995 analysis by Defenders of Wildlife identified 69 ecosystems in the United States that had lost 85 percent or more of their acreage to development over the last three centuries (Noss and Peters 1995). Other studies indicate that only 42 percent of U.S. lands remain covered with natural vegetation (Bryer et al. 2000).

Parks and preserves help protect natural habitats, but they are scattered throughout the country with few natural landscape linkages between them. Most protected areas are also found at high elevations, or on biologically unproductive lands that tend to harbor fewer species than those at lower elevations (Scott et al. 2001). These low-elevation, biologically diverse areas are also attractive for development.

The Need for Conservation Planning
The federal Endangered Species Act is the most powerful regulatory tool for protecting individual species and natural habitats in the United States. The Endangered Species Act prohibits taking, killing or otherwise harming species that have been officially listed as endangered or threatened, and calls for protection of habitat critical to their survival. But the Endangered Species Act has been used to protect species only after their numbers have dropped to perilously low levels. Waiting until populations of the species reach the brink of extinction reduces their chances for successful recovery and such reactive, urgent rescue operations usually require intensive management and habitat restoration. This kind of last-minute regulatory action is also often extremely expensive and contentious.

Over the last decade, in an attempt to protect endangered species and their habitats on non-federal lands, habitat conservation plans have been adopted as a provision of the Endangered Species Act. Under 1982 amendments to the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can approve habitat conservation plans that allow the destruction or alteration of habitat for listed species in one area in exchange for conservation measures that protect those species and their habitat elsewhere. Habitat conservation plans represent a pragmatic advance in endangered species protection, but few plans are designed to preserve a full range of species over an extended area, let alone an entire region. Too many plans, especially the early ones, deal only with one or two endangered species, small parcels of land, and a limited number of landowners.

Recently, a number of habitat conservation plans that seek to protect many species and large areas of land have been undertaken at the state and regional level. In southern California, for example, multi-species conservation plans have been adopted for large portions of San Diego and Orange counties. Similar plans are underway in other California counties, as well as in Arizona and Nevada. While such multi-species plans represent progress in conservation, they are often not integrated well with local land use planning.

Experience suggests that a more comprehensive, refined, and proactive approach is needed to protect large areas that support whole communities of wildlife and other natural resources. Conservation should be initiated to prevent species from becoming endangered or threatened, rather than begun only when their numbers have declined to the point where emergency protection and recovery is required. Ultimately, preserving entire ecosystems cost less, give landowners, wildlife biologists, and land use managers greater flexibility, and reduce conflicts between conservation and economic interests.

Linking state or regional conservation planning with local land use planning is one way to achieve a more comprehensive approach to habitat and biodiversity preservation. Some states and communities have already begun to do so, but to secure the nation's biodiversity and to make habitat conservation work comprehensively across the landscape, more plans that integrate wildlife conservation and local land use planning are needed.

Conservation planning offers a powerful way to address the needs of wild animals and plants while incorporating the goals of biodiversity and habitat preservation into state, regional and/or local planning processes. With conservation planning, the needs of wild animals and plants, and the human community can be considered concurrently. Such planning can help identify where to locate new housing developments, transportation corridors, and business sites so that natural habitats, aquatic resources, open space, and wildlife will be protected and conserved. To be effective, comprehensive conservation plans should be designed on a landscape-scale as much as possible, and include active community involvement.

Promoting Comprehensive Conservation Planning
In a proactive effort to protect endangered species, a number of state agencies, local and regional governments, and conservation groups have initiated comprehensive conservation planning processes. Five states — Florida, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey and Oregon — have undertaken large-scale conservation assessments. Seven other states have begun to draft assessments, and others have expressed interest in drafting plans in the near future (see status map on the next page).

Although these states' assessments differ in approach, scope and methodology, all recognize the connection between conservation and land use planning, and that these disciplines can be used in a complementary fashion to help preserve biodiversity and natural habitats. This is particularly true in urbanizing landscapes where land use planning tends to focus and is most influential.

The few existing statewide conservation assessments use habitat and species information compiled by various government and private groups. Among these sources of information are the individual state's natural heritage programs. Initiated by The Nature Conservancy more than 25 years ago, these programs catalogue inventories of each state's wild animals, plants and plant communities. The Nature Conservancy has also begun to develop ecoregional plans, using ecological boundaries defined by environmental conditions such as moisture and solar radiation, and characteristic assemblages of species and habitats (Groves et al. 2000) to define 80 ecoregions within the United States. Each plan will feature conservation sites containing native plant and animal communities representative of the ecoregion's biodiversity and provide habitat for the region's "at risk" species.

To assist state fish and wildlife agencies in developing and implementing statewide conservation plans Federal funds are available through the Department of Interior's State Wildlife Grants Program. As of 2001, this program was funded at $80 million per year. To be eligible for these grants, a state fish and wildlife agency must agree to complete a comprehensive wildlife conservation plan by October 2005, and have the federal funds matched by nonfederal funds at a level of twenty-five percent for planning activities, and fifty percent for plan implementation. The State Wildlife Grants program, along with the information compiled by The Nature Conservancy and others, puts state and local land use planners in a good position to undertake comprehensive conservation planning.

However many state and local planners remain unaware of conservation plans or how to integrate them with local land use planning. Consequently, existing conservation strategies, local land use plans and related decision-making processes are not often connected effectively. Historically, local planning has not addressed habitat conservation systematically, and conservation groups and wildlife agencies have not always used land use planning processes effectively for habitat protection, hence opportunities to protect biodiversity and conserve habitat have often been missed. Even so called "smart growth" plans have often failed to include specifically designated wildlife habitats

Value of Biodiversity

Why is biological diversity important? Many arguments can be made from scientific, philosophical, economic, ethical, and aesthetic perspectives. Scientists argue that much remains to be learned about many species and ecosystems around the world and that the loss of these species would foreclose that opportunity. Certain rare species are singled out as worth saving for their sake; the loss of the Sumatran tiger, for example, or the rhinocerous would be mourned by many who have never seen these animals in the wild. There is great beauty in forests, coral reefs, savannahs, and other landscapes that is worth preserving for future generations, as well as our own, to appreciate.

Natural resources also provide critical ecosystem services. Forests retain moisture in the soil and prevent erosion; hillside areas can be subject to mudslides where forests are cleared, resulting in loss of life and property. Of the approximately 1.4 million species that are known, almost one million are insects and other invertebrates, and these are, as E.O. Wilson has said, “the little things that run the world” by breaking down plant and animal matter and making it available as nutrients. Crop and forest lands provide food and wood for shelter and sustenance. The interactions between the living and the non-living parts of the environment provide essential ecosystems services of soil formation, climate control, and water recycling. In one study, published in 1997 in the science journal Nature, researchers estimated the value of these ecosystem services at between $16 trillion and $54 trillion a year.

Arguments for increased international efforts to conserve habitats and ecosystems often emphasize the value of biodiversity to humans: the "un-mined riches" that we may discover in plants and animals and the potential of new food sources. For example, approximately 25 percent of all prescription drugs in the United States are derived from plants. The rosy periwinkle from Madagascar is the source of a drug used in the treatment of Hodgkin's disease and leukemia. The Pacific yew tree is the source of Taxol, a drug which has been found effective in treatment of ovarian cancer. Some drugs found have been identified through native folklore. Peruvian Indians, for example, treated malaria with an extract from the bark of the Cinchona tree. Study of this extract led to discovery and use of quinine. the first effective treatment for malaria.

The potential for discovering medicines is often cited as an argument for international cooperation in preserving tropical forests, but also as a means for doing so, by finding useful products that can be extracted profitably from the plants and animals of the rainforest, through bioprospecting. For example, Glaxo Wellcome, a British pharmaceutical company, funds the Centre for Natural Products Research in Singapore, which surveys species in Asia for medicinal purposes. Conservation International has initiated an agreement between Bristol-Meyers Squib, Suriname, and the National Institutes of Health.

There are concerns about bioprospecting, however. Some developing countries maintain that they will not receive a sufficient portion of the profits from drugs developed from plants found within their borders. On the other hand, the costs of isolating useful species, developing drugs and other products, and testing them for use is enormously expensive, and those costs are borne by the drug companies.