Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to COMMUNITIES TAKING CHARGE -- CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT

THE PRESIDENT'S COLUMN -- CONSERVATION BIOLOGY: A PARADIGM SHIFT

Radical paradigm shifts occurred when society embraced the sun rather than the earth as the center of the universe, evolution rather than special creation as the mechanism of speciation, and recognized that plate tectonics move continents. Conservation needs an equally radical shift. For generations, the prevailing paradigm in the "West" has been to "develop" natural landscapes for human uses. Under the new paradigm, undeveloped lands would be viewed as areas that perform vital ecological services, support biodiversity, and, therefore, must not be diminished. Under the new paradigm, undeveloped land would not be considered unused or underutilized, but rather necessary to support biodiversity, ecological services, and humanity's mental, physical, and spiritual health. The amount of undeveloped land shrinks as human consumption and numbers grow. Current policies favor short-term gain and wasteful development instead of fostering a long-term strategy of more intensive use of already developed land. The most developed lands in the United States, the inner cities, languish as rural landscapes are converted to suburban havens and forests are dissected by more and more roads.

The new paradigm must be that natural landscapes are vital to humanity's long-term welfare. If we accept this paradigm shift, we will cease subsidizing activities that convert natural lands. Land grants, tax incentives, zoning, and cheap claims for mineral and water rights have subsidized conversions in the name of social progress and economic gain. It is these very practices that have brought about the endangerment of species. As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us." Under the new paradigm, conservation biologists would work to encourage more intensive use of less land and to promote stewardship, restoration, and greater concentrations of wildlife rather than over-use, extinction, and neglect. Only under rare conditions would forests and agricultural fields be converted to cities, roads, malls, and other "more-developed" uses.

Although many biodiversity problems appear more severe in developing countries, this is largely because they only recently have started intensive development. They are just now losing the "buffalo" that we exterminated long ago. By changing how humans use the land, the growing problem of extinction can at least be slowed.

To bring about the vital paradigm shift, members of the SCB need to seek three changes that would reduce habitat loss and degradation. First, our laws and taxes must be changed to encourage the development of already-developed land and discourage the conversion of undeveloped land. That is, we must seek to reverse how the West was colonized by investing socially and economically in land already dedicated to human uses.

Second, and closely coupled to decreasing land conversion, is a need to make developers rather than taxpayers at large pay the true cost of development. Taxpayers should not pay to build logging roads or clean up mistakes of business, industry, or commerce. If developers paid the true cost of conversion of forests, swamps, or agricultural land, much environmental damage could be avoided. A developer should pay not only for infrastructure but also for the loss of wildlife and ecological services. We have so little natural land left that when it is diminished, wildlife and ecological services are disproportionally impacted. The societal subsidies for these losses should be borne by the developer, not society, and costs should be paid prior to land conversion. At a minimum, the costs to ultimately restore the land to its pre-development state should be assessed. The costs to monitor and quantify the success of the restoration must also be built into the development costs. These restoration costs should be collected and held before development can proceed.

Third, mitigation banking should be a major blueprint for zoning and development. If a piece of land is to be developed or converted, loss of ecological services such as water retention, wildlife habitat, air purification, and soil formation should be accounted for and mitigated through the purchase of equivalent or additional service units in the form of land in a location permanently zoned for ecological services and wildlife. Strong community planning and scientific information are needed if mitigation is to reduce human impacts on biodiversity, the landscape, and ecological services. This is equally important in the marine environment, where over-harvesting and nearshore habitat destruction are the key issues; in freshwater systems the problems are most often water quality and introduction of non-native species.

One of major reasons we have a biodiversity crisis is because we don't follow these guidelines. Development is driven by short-term economic rather than long-term biological considerations. However, we have one key piece of legislation that requires decisions be based on biology--the Endangered Species Act. This Act is the emergency room for species. It places a value on non-human life by requiring that society not destroy species to satisfy short-term development goals. Strong economic forces always have wanted to modify this Act. In fact, early on Congress allowed the Tennessee Valley Authority to go ahead with one of its dams even if it caused the extinction of the snail darter. A pork barrel project that made no long-term economic sense was funded at the expense of ecological services and cost taxpayers millions and millions of dollars. Fortunately, the snail darter didn't become extinct.

Currently the ESA is up for reauthorization, and bills under consideration give more weight to economic considerations and paperwork. It is our scientific duty to make sure that biology remains the fundamental consideration in species protection. Conserving biological processes is no less important than saving individual species. We cannot let our valid concern about the number of species divert our attention from protecting the processes and products in which species play vital roles in the community.

Fortunately, the Endangered Species Act can accomplish most of its objectives if it is creatively administered and adequately funded. We do not need legislative change, just major administrative relief. For example, recovery plans have become longer and more administrative rather than more action-oriented with measurable milestones. The purpose of recovery plans should be to recover the species and these documents should have goals whose progress can be assessed, measured, and quantified. Today, limited agency resources are used more for regulation and enforcement than for recovery and restoration. Instead of helping organizations and groups with recovery planning and restoration, processing permits and pushing papers has become paramount. Listing and recovery of endangered species as evidenced by the paperwork required must be made easier.

We should acknowledge scientific success stories and delist species with great fanfare. With the passage of the ESA in 1966, one of the species recognized as Endangered was the Peregrine Falcon, a flagship species that inspires people with its beauty, hunting skill, and spectacular flight. Peregrine Falcons, along with many other birds of prey, were reduced to extremely low numbers due to reproductive problems associated with DDT. From near extinction in the 1950s and 1960s, Peregrine numbers have increased across most of North America. In Colorado there were only five active eyries in 1975; by 1996 there were 83. In spite of this success story the species has yet to be de-listed. Failure to delist fosters perceptions that the Act has failed.

Properly done, Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) can be an important part of the new paradigm. HCPs are a mechanism to encourage landowners to consider the needs of species while allowing some increased intensity of development and land use. Approved HCPs allow take (i.e. kill) of an endangered species. About four years ago there were no HCPs; today more than 200 have been approved and several hundred more are under active consideration by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Unfortunately, many HCPs are based on very little biology or dubious biological assumptions. For example, the Pineywoods HCP, now under consideration for private and public lands in Texas, suggests that if developers are willing to move woodpeckers from place to place, timber cutting can continue as it has in the past. There is little evidence to suggest that implementation of these procedures is compatible with a mobile woodpecker population. When evidence is lacking, HCPs need to include (1) adaptive procedures that monitor how well the approved mitigation activities are succeeding and (2) specific criteria for modifying them if new evidence suggests that changes are needed. Recovery plans likewise should incorporate incentives for agencies and landowners so that populations of endangered and sensitive species rise rather than fall. Biology, like business and life, is full of surprises, and we need to try to help buffer systems from degradation.

Social and economic incentives encouraging people to do the right thing also are needed. A Habitat Conservation Plan should measure and quantify how they are conserving biodiversity. Permit holders that scientifically quantify improvements in threatened or endangered species abundance, survivorship, or reproduction on their land should be eligible for tax relief or reductions in reporting requirements.

The Endangered Species Act is the last stop before extinction. If we are successful, it rarely should need to be used. If we change how we use our land and reduce the human footprint, perhaps the Act will function as it was intended, as a mechanism to keep species from winking out before we can have an opportunity to modify human behavior. The ESA is the most important current opportunity we have to encourage the needed paradigm shift. As conservation biologists we all have a responsibility to help conserve our biological heritage and continue to explain to the general public why biological concerns need to inform all decisions about how we use land and species. If we fail we will soon know. We must all be up to the challenge.

P. Dee Boersma
Department of Zoology, Box 351800
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington 98195
boersma@u.washington.edu

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to COMMUNITIES TAKING CHARGE -- CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT