“Speak too forcefully and other
scientists view you as an ideologue; speak too softly and you duck a moral
responsibility.” E.O. Wilson
Dangerous?
Seven widely-held and deeply-clung to notions of conservation greatly impede
our efforts to conserve diverse life on this planet. If we fail, humanity risks
grave hardship and apocalyptic consequences that will arise as our biosphere
continues to deteriorate.
1. The first notion
is that the biosphere situation (rapidly changing conditions and loss of
biodiversity) is not yet so bad that it warrants altering our comfortable,
consensus-building conservation routines. The reality is that the rate and
magnitude of biodiversity loss and changes to biosphere conditions are now so
great and rapidly mounting that we need to escalate conservation efforts to a
war-footing (Lenton 2011, Noss et al.
2012, Running 2012). Conservationists have long been cautious about crying
wolf, but loss and change is now so fast and pronounced that a strident,
sustained call of alarm and action is justified and morally responsible. In
practical terms, a war-footing means the biosphere crisis headlines news every
day, global leaders and institutions act with focused attention, extraordinary
levels of international cooperation, compliance, and funding exist, and global
action to avert the biosphere crisis is fervently underway. To save the Earth
we may have to find courage and step out of our comfort zones and literally and
figuratively stand in front of bulldozers.
Given
how quickly and how much the biosphere is changing and how much biodiversity is
being lost, the next thirty years likely offers our best window of opportunity to protect sufficient habitat, restore
wildlife populations and ecological processes, and reduce pollution (for
example, compounds that damage our critical ozone layer and greenhouse gases)
to a point where the biosphere can maintain favorable conditions for humanity. We
simply do not have the time to gather exhaustive data and sway entrenched
skeptics if we are to make meaningful progress in stabilizing biodiversity loss
and biosphere change over the next few decades. Yes, many good people and
governments are trying, and trying hard, but trying without results at scale is not good enough anymore
given the stakes.
Red sediment in river in deforested and burned landscape, Madagascar
2. The second notion
relates to the physical and ecological scale of conservation perceived to be
adequate to retain biological diversity and global life-sustaining processes. Excellent
conservation thinking and efforts exist and much progress has been made, yet
there is a pervasive, resigned complacency that protection goals in the
neighborhood of 10% of landscapes or seascapes, or wildlife populations, is all
that is practical to achieve and, with fingers crossed, much of the world’s
species will be saved and the biosphere stabilized. The daunting reality is
that somewhere in the range of a third to a half of the Earth’s surface must be
maintained in a more ‘natural’ than ‘developed’ (or ‘heavily exploited’) state
to stem biodiversity loss and sustain favorable conditions for our species and
society (see Noss et al. 2011). The
complex mosaic of life forms on the planet cannot be saved in any 10%
protection scheme, even if well-sited. Importantly, human-transformed
ecosystems and technological fixes simply cannot take of the life-sustaining
role of a robust, nature-dominated biosphere, even one functioning at 10%
capacity.
Given
the trajectories of global biodiversity loss and biosphere change, monumental
conservation actions are imperative for regaining a balance with our biosphere:
a quarter to a third of coasts and open ocean protected; larger marine species and
keystone terrestrial and freshwater species fully protected for at least thirty
years; all international trade in wildlife banned and vulnerable species
everywhere protected; new coastlines formed through rising seas protected now
with preemptive reserves; worldwide removal of obsolete and poorly-considered
dams and barrages and restoration of riparian, wetland, and headwater habitats
at watershed scales; and an immediate ban on all ozone-depleting compounds and
greenhouse gas production minimized. (While global scale action is critical,
local conservation success still remains a foundation for protecting diverse
life and restoring functional ecosystems.)
A
third to a half of the planet ‘natural’? Humans already dominate and exploit
most of the Earth’s surface and they use 90% of the Earth’s net primary (plant)
production (Running 2012). Demand for natural resources will surely explode
along with the projected 40% population increase by 2050. Planetary boundaries
are already being reached (for example, freshwater, phosphorous) and we are
pushing up against most others. Superlative global changes now occur
regularly―the worst droughts, the highest temperatures, the greatest loss of
seas ice, polar bears and tigers nearly gone, once great forests in tattered
remnants. Considerably more than 10% of the Earth’s surface is still relatively
‘natural’, yet the biosphere and biodiversity are still going downhill fast―very
fast―and irreversible shifts to novel, unfavorable conditions may be close at
hand or inevitable (Lenton 2011). To think 10% protection will work is a very
dangerous notion.
3. Third notion. Some
maintain we can save much of the Earth’s biodiversity without having to protect
‘old-growth’ habitats. While
protecting and restoring degraded and exploited habitats will make valuable
contributions to conservation, ‘old-growth’ habitats act as the only refugia
for vast numbers of life forms that do not abide much anthropogenic
disturbance. Old-growth habitats also uniquely act as optimal arenas for a
multitude of ecological interactions and biophysical processes. Unlogged
forests, untrawled seafloors, unplowed grasslands, ungrazed deserts, unfished
seamounts are examples. Ecosystems that still retain their full complement of
larger vertebrate and keystone species are similarly important. The last
remaining old-growth habitats and intact faunas everywhere must be priority
targets for conservation action. The loss of old-growth habitats largely drives
today’s juggernaut of species extinctions.
Giant sequoia, California Sierra Nevada
4. Many
practically-minded conservationists resignedly accept triage as a necessary
evil. Too much must be done with too little time and resources. On the other
hand, every species has value, every habitat contributes functionally to
important processes and ecologic resilience at larger scales, and every
conservation effort contributes to saving diverse life forms and functional
ecosystems. However challenging it may be to pry it free, there really is
sufficient money and resources to protect most of remaining nature and put in
place effective conservation at local to monumental scales. A committed
humanity can easily survive reallocating funding from the private sector,
military budgets, obsolete subsidies, and pharaonic development projects. And
there are lots and lots of people to do whatever is necessary. The fourth notion, then, is that it is
one or the other, triage or save everything―polarized opinions that often
engender distracting debate. Priority-setting must help guide the timing,
sequence, and relative resource allocation of conservation efforts, but every
species, habitat, and conservation effort has value, no matter how local. No
species gets left behind.
5. Fifth notion.
Conservation success has been attributed to both ‘carrot’ and ‘stick’ motivators.
One commonly encounters the polyannic notion that ‘carrot’ approaches, such as
environmental education and ecotourism, are sufficient, by themselves, for
long-term success. But human nature and escalating local and global demand for
natural resources ensures that spoilers are everywhere and ever present,
whether they are people or companies inside or outside of conservation steward
entities. Effective compliance, supported by a good enforcement strategy and
program (and equable distribution of conservation-related profits), ensures
successful conservation investments and sustainability. Conserve softly but
carry a big stick.
6. Sixth notion. Well-intentioned and thoughtful optimists offer hope that as we drive major changes in the biosphere that our species will simply adapt. We may indeed adapt, but the amount of hardship, suffering, strife, and mortality associated with our ‘adaptation’ likely depends greatly on how much natural habitat is retained and how well natural ecosystems still maintain favorable conditions. Again, the notion that technological advances will mend degraded biosphere processes or replace them altogether is quixotic, at best. New technology may reduce habitat loss and pollution, but replacing the role of a healthy biosphere in maintaining planetary–scale life-sustaining processes within the next 80 years is a pipe dream.
7. The seventh notion―the
end is near. Barring a nuclear holocaust or sizable asteroid impact, complex
life will persist after multiple planetary boundaries are reached and
biospheric conditions shift to novel states. Humans may have a hardscrabble
time of it, but there is a good likelihood our species will make it through
this crisis phase, hopefully to emerge a lot wiser, more cooperative, and in
better balance with our extraordinary and singular home. One cannot expect to
engender support for conservation by saying all is lost, so it is a good thing
there really is considerable hope, but our gravely serious situation should not
be understated or ignored. What is at stake is our future quality of life and
the opportunities lost, hardships endured, disasters suffered, and cosmic
loneliness we will have to live with if we fail to conserve the Earth’s profusion
of complex life and profoundly alter our long-sustaining biosphere.
Mariposa lily & buckwheat, Southern California
Explore Further
Lenton,
TM. 2011. Early warning of climate tipping points. Nature Climate Change
1:201-209. Doi:10.1-38/nclimate1143.
Noss, RF, AP Dobson, R Baldwin, P Beier, CR Davis, DA DellaSala, J Francis, H
Locke, K Nowak, R Lopez, C Reining, SC Trombulak, G Tabor. 2012. Bolder
thinking for conservation. Conservation Biology 26:1-4.
Running, SW. 2012. A measurable
planetary boundary for the biosphere. Science
337:1458-1459.