Biodiversity concepts and applications

Biodiversity is one of the most prominent issues in conservation today. It is a generally accepted fact that biodiversity must be preserved not only for the aesthetic inheritance of future generations, but also for the continuation of life on earth. Indeed, the topic has been the focus of many a lecture, seminar and conference on sustainability and economics. The concept of "overprotection" for biodiversity might therefore seem somewhat bizarre to the uninitiated. Indeed, is not the very focus of conservation the longevity of life on earth in a sustainable and responsible manner? The term "overprotection" should however be understood in a particular sense in order to make sense in the context of biodiversity, conservation and sustainability. Only when this understanding is achieved, an assessment can be made regarding the possible overprotection of biodiversity.

The economics professor David N. Laband (Ghista, 2004), is one of the foremost critics against the form that biodiversity protection takes today. According to the professor, biodiversity protection is not exercised in either a responsible or sustainable manner. For this, he blames the way in which human society is constructed.

Human beings today, especially those living in urban areas, tend to be separated from the natural environment that sustains them. Everything is made available in processed form. The urban citizen is no longer responsible for hunting, farming or slaughtering his or her own food. Hence, when problems such as sustainability and biodiversity present themselves, it tends to be romanticized in the minds of those not directly affected. It is as if the urban citizen is obsessed by these ideas when they are broadcast over the media. It is the fashion, as it were, to be concerned with the environment. Such concern however does not directly affect those responsible for laws governing environmental conservation and sustainability.

The point that Prof. Laband makes is that public demand for biodiversity is generally free of charge for those making such demands. As such, these people do not feel the effect of implementing the laws that they call for. Those who are most severely affected are landowners. The closest that urban residents come into contact with biodiversity is via their back gardens. These are so filled with artificial substances that they can hardly be called natural at all. Indeed, the claim is that Urban citizens create aesthetic but sterile environments around them even while demanding biodiversity conservation in urban areas. The result is that urban citizens continue their highly comfortable and unsustainable lifestyles while the laws they demand oblige landowners to bear the financial burden of conservation. Instead of this approach, Prof. Laband suggests that all citizens be responsible for the costs of maintaining biodiversity. In this light, what he means by "overprotecting" biodiversity is the economic imbalance that this creates between the unsustainable urban lifestyle and the lives of landowners who are obliged to pay the price for the comfort of others.

Related to this concern, the professor further explicates two ways in which biodiversity might be overprotected. The first is the overuse of an allocated piece of land in order to protect the rest of the land. With an insufficient amount of land available for human use, this scenario results in even greater unsustainability. Protection of biodiversity to the detriment of human life in this way leads to overprotection.

Secondly, dangerous animals such as mountain lions, black bears and coyotes are often protected to the point where they also pose a danger to human life. Wildlife attacks on human beings in the vicinity then leads to further danger to human life.

Thirdly, Laband identifies the problem of lawmaking that occurs at the national level. Lawmakers are therefore more often than not far from the actual areas affected by these laws. Instead, it is suggested that laws be made at the local level and also that these laws should be the shared responsibility of all citizens within the area. In this way, those calling for laws relating to biodiversity will also do so with a greater sense of responsibility not only for animal life, but for human life as well.

The crux of the problem, according to the professor, does not as such relate to the overprotection of biodiversity as an issue on its own, but rather to how this relates to and interacts with human life. Protecting biodiversity at the cost of human life and sustainability defeats its very purpose. Professor Laband does not oppose biodiversity or its protection, but he does advocate that this should be done on a more effective basis.

Biodiversity is also important on a global scale. According to Mayall (2001), farming and population growth are the current human activities that have the greatest impact on biodiversity worldwide. Deforestation has begun a crisis that can only be mitigated by proper conservation procedures. While this problem is recognized in powerful circles throughout the world, it is not being mitigated in a sufficiently targeted manner to make a significant difference. In this, the article is in agreement with Laband's point-of-view, in that the current policies regarding biodiversity conservation do not adequately serve their purpose.

Mayall is one of the critics that approaches the biodiversity problem from the viewpoint of human impact and sustainability, and specifically, in terms of farming. Rather than, like Ghista's article, focusing on how protection laws affect humanity, Mayall considers the impact that human activities have on the environment and biodiversity, and how the damage created by this impact can be mitigated via policy and/or legislation. The main problem the author addresses is the clearing of land for agriculture. Agriculture is however required for sustained life. Ironically, life is impossible to sustain if agriculture destroys all biodiversity. Instead of arbitrarily clearing an increasing amount of land, therefore, human and other life can maintain a better balance if a more restrained approach is taken.

Giles Atkinson views the problem from the viewpoint of both economics and the need to survive. In addition to survival, one of the great human incentives for taking action is the economy. A perceived value attached to clearing land for logging or farming outweighs the perceived value of future sustainability when the economic situation dictates this. This is seen on an individual level, where the farmer or logger makes more money f or himself by clearing the land than by conserving it. As seen above, however, society as a collective entity might have a different view on the matter. In this, Atkinson identifies a contrast between the individual and social costs of conserving biodiversity.

This is the same issue addressed by Ghista's article mentioned above. Those who feel the greatest impact of conserving biodiversity and those with the power of legislation and the vote do not carry the same interests at heart. There is a discrepancy both of costs and of power, and policy making as well as conservation itself suffer because of it. The individual farmer is required to pay the price of conserving biodiversity, while society as a collective entity receive all the benefits without any of the costs. This lies at the heart of the overprotection paradigm. Those with a direct economic interest in landownership will be more likely to feel that biodiversity protection is not balanced against its economic implications.

Atkinson then takes a different view of the point made by Prof. Laband. He addresses the issue not from the paradigm of costs, but rather form the paradigm of benefits. In addition to increasing costs to society, another requirement for mitigating the problems related to overprotection is making the individual landowners aware of the advantages of bioconservation.

Indeed, the author emphasizes the importance of these advantages in acquiring funding for increased conservation efforts.

To do this, it is suggested that society should demonstrate the specific advantages of biodiversity for humanity. In order to determine the benefits against the costs of conservation, the author investigates a number of points relating to biodiversity.

Because society is built upon the concept of money, the first and most important advantage of biodiversity is economic. Commercial, agricultural and pharmaceutical value can be derived from greater biodiversity. Indeed, increased biodiversity in rainforests is beneficial, because it derives a greater likelihood for the discovery of life-saving products. Critics might however argue that the likelihood of this is not very significant, and the process of "bioprospecting" for the purpose of conservation does not compare well in terms of costs and benefits. The prospect of benefits is somewhat small and unlikely in terms of the cost incurred. Another economic possibility Atkinson addresses is the possibility of ecotourism. This is a somewhat better prospect in terms of money that tourists are willing to invest in seeing animals in their natural habitats.