Back to CORRECTION

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to TREASURER'S REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005

EDITORIAL: ECONOMIC GROWTH, BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION, AND SCB

Note from the newsletter editor: we recognize that this editorial may generate discussion. Responses are welcome and will be published in future issues of the newsletter.

Recently there has been increased attention to economic growth in the conservation literature(1-4). Careful consideration of the effects of economic growth calls for action from the conservation community. We suggest that it is time for SCB to adopt a strong position on economic growth.

Economic growth consists of increasing population, rising per capita consumption, or both. As the economy grows, humans produce and consume more goods and services. According to the World Bank, the average increase in gross domestic product (GDP), the dollar value of goods and services produced by a nation in a given year, across all nations from 1960-1999 was 3.4% per year(5). Although most economists praise the rise in GDP and proclaim economic growth to be a primary societal goal(6), many conservation biologists and economists with ecological understanding instead acknowledge a fundamental conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation(7). The theoretical and empirical basis for this conflict is well founded(1).

Two elemental ecological principles, competitive exclusion and niche breadth, underpin the conflict. By most measures, humans are trouncing our competition as we carve out our ecological niche. Moreover, as our economies have expanded, human society has occupied a broader ecological niche. Large human populations have adapted to ecosystems we had not previously inhabited. Expanding economies depend on more extensive and intensive use of the planet's most productive areas, diverting resources from other species for the exclusive use of humans. The most significant causes of species endangerment in the United States and Canada are directly related to sectors of the economy(1,8-10). We suggest that the basic principles of conservation biology imply a similar correlation of global GDP and globally imperiled species(11).

In the face of the conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation, what can SCB do? The North America Section already has adopted a position on economic growth. Major points include recognition of the conflict between economic growth and conservation, a goal of replacing the growth economy with a steady state economy that does not breach ecological carrying capacity, understanding the difference between economic development and growth, and support for prosperous transitions to steady state economies for all nations.

First, we need to build on the momentum generated by the North America Section's adoption of the position. It is important for other Regional Sections and SCB to adopt the same position so members can speak with the full weight of the organization behind us. We anticipate some resistance from developing countries with legitimate concerns about raising living standards for their citizens. The position statement addresses these concerns: "For many nations with widespread poverty, increasing per capita consumption (or, alternatively, more equitable distributions of wealth) remains an appropriate goal for the time being, yet the ultimate goal should be the establishment of healthy ecological and social conditions within the framework of a steady state economy." These countries can pursue needed growth, establish steady state economies, and raise living standards without overexploiting natural capital.

A strong position taken by SCB then must be used to effect real change. Professional societies may be one of the best vehicles for scientists to provide information to policymakers(12). Conservation biologists' use of their knowledge to influence decision makers will be much easier if the world's largest professional society of conservation biologists recognizes that we must replace the unsustainable growth paradigm with a steady state economy that will not erode our natural capital.

The SCB position on economic growth would join those of other professional societies, leveraging still more professional societies to adopt strong positions. SCB members should petition the executive boards of other societies to which they belong. Member societies of umbrella organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science should be targeted to adopt economic growth position statements so they can, in turn, petition the umbrella groups that have professional policy staff(13).

We can form coalitions of like-minded scientific societies to build credibility and improve our ability to gain the attention of politicians and non-scientific advocacy organizations(13). We need to build a critical mass to influence the current political agenda. The position that economic growth fundamentally conflicts with biodiversity conservation, and that a steady state economy is a positive goal to attain sustainability, substantively answers recent criticisms of the conservation movement as generally ineffective, irrelevant, and negative in tone(14,15).

SCB's 2006-2010 strategic plan is an excellent guide to internal use of the position. The position is consistent with SCB's mission, vision and values, and many of its goals and objectives. In particular, promulgation of the position among other organizations is consistent with the Conservation Policy goal and objectives 4 and 5. Indeed, we contend that this position is so key to accomplishing the SCB mission that it could be considered an organizing principle incorporated in all SCB outreach programs. For example, objectives 1 and 2 of the Conservation Education goal address college program capacity in each SCB section. Any conservation biology curriculum should include material on the conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation.

Any controversy generated by this position also can help fulfill the goal of enhancing SCB's impact and reputation. The concepts central to the position should be developed prominently in media talking points and incorporated into the objective to "Broaden and strategically integrate the Society's publications, conferences, workshops, and meetings." As we recruit other professional societies to adopt strong positions on economic growth, SCB will gain attention as a bold organization with progressive ideas and a positive vision of humanity's future.

Finally, some may believe that a statement of the fundamental conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation, although true, is simply too radical or divisive and will invite the label of extremism. But we must not merely seek consensus with political opponents in response to critical conservation problems, because that "further legitimizes continuity or stability" and fails to lead to needed systemic change(3). Instead, we should embrace an argument-based model of political discourse, in which competing choices are debated and evaluated based on underlying values and scientific merit. We should not shirk our responsibility to meet the ultimate challenge to biodiversity conservation with solutions that are commensurately challenging but scientifically justified.

Literature Cited

1. D.L. Trauger, B. Czech, J.D. Erickson, P.R. Garrettson, B.J. Kernohan, C.A. Miller. 2003. Wildlife Society Technical Review 03-1. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD, USA.

2. B. Czech. 2004. Front. Ecol. Env. 2, 227.

3. M.N. Peterson, M. J. Peterson, T. R. Peterson. 2005. Cons. Biol. 19, 762.

4. J. Rosales. In press. Cons. Biol. 20.

5. W. Easterly, M. Sewadeh. 2002. Global development network growth database. World Bank.

6. B. Bluestone, B. Harrison. 2000. Growing prosperity: the battle for growth with equity in the twenty-first century. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, Massachusetts.

7. H.E. Daly, J. Farley. 2003. Ecological economics: principles and applications. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

8. B. Czech, P.R. Krausman, P.K. Devers. 2000. BioScience 50, 593.

9. B. Czech, D.L. Trauger, J. Farley, R. Costanza, H.E. Daly, C.A.S. Hall, R.F. Noss, L. Krall, P.R. Krausman. 2005. Science 308, 791.

10. A. Rose. 2005. Fisheries 30(8), 36.

11. R. Naidoo, W.L. Adamowicz. 2001. Cons. Biol. 15, 1021.

12. D.E. Blockstein. 2001. BioScience 52, 81.

13. G.J. Anderson. 2002. BioScience 52, 85.

14. D.W. Orr. 2003. Cons. Biol. 17, 348.

15. M. Shellenberger, T. Nordhaus. 2005. http://grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/doe-reprint/ (accessed June 2005).

Robert W. Dietz, 3425 Purdue Place NE, Albuquerque, NM 87106, USA, rob_dietz@fws.gov

William Bridgeland, Northern Arizona University, School of Forestry, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA, William.Bridgeland@nau.edu

Back to CORRECTION

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to TREASURER'S REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005