|
|||||||||
| You are here: Home > Publications > Newsletter > Archives > 2006-2-February > | ||||||||||||
WHAT DOES GROWTH MEAN FOR SCB?
The editorial Economic growth, biodiversity conservation, and SCB [SCB Newsletter 12(4):10, 12] prompted two responses and two corresponding replies.
CAN SCB RESTRAIN ITS OWN GROWTH?I enjoyed the editorial Economic growth, biodiversity conservation, and SCB, which emphasized the need for a steady state economy in contrast to continual economic growth. However, I also read the editorial with some skepticism. I did not even have to turn the page to find support for my cynicism. The Treasurer's report, on the page facing the editorial [SCB newsletter 12(4):11], was full of praise for the growth of SCB itself! Within the report, the growth of the investments of the Board Designated Reserve is celebrated, we are warned that a challenge is to maintain growth of Sections outside North America, and, finally, we are assured that the Board of Governors is committed to expanding our funding base. SCB's 2006-2010 Strategic Plan itself highlights the need to increase our financial strength. If SCB strives for growth, then we will contribute to economic growth. And if we cannot restrain our own growth, how can we expect others to accept a steady state economy? The tragedy of the economic growth model has many similarities to the "tragedy of the commons" concept. Similarly, from the perspective of the individual (or individual institution), the benefits of growth outweigh the negative effects on society. However, Berkes et al. (1989) showed that common-property resources can be sustained if communities develop their own self-limiting rules. For SCB to reach its own steady state, we must develop our own rules of restraint. This might require the membership to accept fewer services from SCB, such as smaller or more local meetings, than if we continued to grow. This might not be in the best interests of members. But if we adopt a policy promoting a steady state economy, we will be asking others to change their lifestyle in a way that is not in their personal interests, either. We can only do so if we also are willing to compromise. Maybe the costs to conservation of ceasing growth of SCB are too high. But we are arrogant if we think our own objectives are worthy of growth, while the objectives of other organizations are not. Perhaps our goals are a perfect example of why promoting a steady state economy is doomed to failure before it begins.
Literature CitedBerkes, F., D. Feeny, B.J. McCay, and J.M Acheson. 1989. Nature 340:91. Nicola Koper
CAN SCB RESTRAIN ITS OWN GROWTH? RESPONSENicola Koper's letter is welcome, as it provides an important opportunity to clarify a number of matters about which there seems to be some confusion. We are reminded of a speech Abraham Lincoln made in the midst of the U.S. civil war about the need for a good definition of liberty. Everyone, he noted, supported liberty. But in the north liberty meant the right to control one's own life; in the south it meant the right to control the lives of others. Those conservationists who oppose economic growth generally mean material growth. Material growth involves humans taking an ever-increasing share of the natural world, be it stocks or flows, and converting it to human use, thereby degrading ecosystems and reducing populations of other species, sometimes to the point of extinction. Conceptually at least, economic growth is possible without material growth, just as a human may become wiser over the years without adding neurons or gaining physical mass and increasing their impact on the natural world. But in the world at large today economic growth and material growth are virtually equal to the point at which, in the developed world at least, material growth is a major source of the biological impoverishment against which conservation biologists fight. SCB envisions and works toward "[a] world where people understand, value, and conserve the diversity of life on Earth." Does SCB need to command more material resources to achieve that vision? Given the social inertia arrayed against conservation, we believe the answer is yes. A stronger membership base, more knowledge, and greater capacity to influence policy means doing research, flying to meetings, publishing documents, and much else. Growing our Board Designated Reserve, which is largely composed of securities, will help us do that. Does that make SCB hypocritical? Certainly much of what we do involves the use of material resources and more of them over time. This can contribute to overall material growth and human impact unless growth is curtailed in other sectors of the economy, e.g. fewer sport utility vehicles produced and driven. Probably one of the most troubling problems for the conservation community is its dependence on gifts from individuals and foundations. Almost invariably the magnitude of giving depends on how well individuals are doing financially, which in turn depends on material economic growth. When the economy is doing poorly--and this often means less destruction of nature--giving to conservation is down and nongovernmental organizations can do less. When the economy is expanding and giving is high, conservationists are able to do more, but there is a real question whether they achieve more with that extra money than the economy destroys. This contradiction does present a serious problem. But virtually every effort to change policy and society has confronted a similar contradiction: how to operate effectively in the existing world (and embrace some of its tools) while embodying and bringing to birth the vision of a new world. Does this mean SCB can grow its resources without reflection? No. Self-restraint, as Koper suggests, is important. SCB, for example, is encouraging members to receive Conservation Biology and the Newsletter in electronic format. Hardly impact free, but an improvement. Self-restraint, however, is inadequate. Decisions to choose a small car over a sport utility vehicle are important, but they are no substitute for a society ending its subsidies for cars and investing in lower impact transportation systems or making travel less necessary. Unless those social changes are made the choices of individuals are sharply constrained. The real crux of Koper's argument seems to be the notion that "we are arrogant if we think our own objectives are worthy of growth [let's assume material growth], while the objectives of other organizations are not." This is naïve at best and fails to grasp that as a species for which much behavior is not hardwired, we must make choices. Individuals and societies do and must establish priorities and hold some things to be more valuable than others. Is it arrogant to believe that investing in conserving nature is no worthier than investing in gas-guzzling vehicles? That investing in health care is the same as investing in an army to protect oil supplies, the use of which contributes to climate change? To return to Lincoln, is it arrogant to favor the interests of the slave in freedom over the interests of the slave owner in his "property"? Certainly part of the belief system of conservationists is that there is an overriding value to the survival of species and ecosystems. Many of us believe that embodying those values in collective policies is the only way to achieve SCB's vision. That certainly means some personal interests are favored over others. That is precisely what political decisions are all about--valuing some things over others. Is it worth spending material resources in trying to achieve those goals, including the reduction of material growth overall? We believe so. Does it require us to engage in critical self-reflection about our choices and aspire to less destruction of nature in the name of SCB's growth to support conservation? Absolutely, and we believe that SCB's leadership is constantly engaged in such deliberations and actions. What is truly arrogant is the plunder of the Earth and the destruction of living systems to make way for more people and more commodities. David Johns, Treasurer, SCB
STEADY, READY OR NOT: A RESPONSE TO DIETZ AND BRIDGELANDThe editorial by Dietz and Bridgeland is to be commended if it is meant to be a lightning rod for academic thrust and parry. But I see little that the essay will bring to real life solutions. This is because 1. The steady state economy is an interesting but still untested idea. I first heard about the idea from the work of Herman Daly many years ago, but all the economies of the world are still grounded in the classic concepts of growth. Moreover, a steady state economy has not been adopted in any global forum or agreement such as the World Summit on Sustainable Development, the Millennium Development Goal, or the World Trade Organization rounds or in multilateral environment agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2. The United States needs to reduce its huge appetite and become a model. Developing countries are resentful of the calls to curb growth while that of the United States continues unabated. 3. Events, notably globalization and climate change, have overtaken the steady state thinkers. Subsidies, non-tariff trade barriers, and the ending of preferential trade agreements make it impossible for many developing countries to compete fairly. As for climate change, new research shows that even if the United States, China, and India do sign the Kyoto Protocol, global warming is here to stay. 4. The struggle to lift millions of people out of poverty cannot be achieved by turning developing world economies into steady state economies, despite the caveat Dietz and Bridgeland propose. And it is naïve to believe that any of the 500 richest people whose total annual income is more than that of the 416 million poorest would agree to a redistribution of his or her wealth. 5. The latest Human Development Report lays out the sheer magnitude of this tragedy in mind-numbing figures. 6. I would think that although biologists from developing countries would agree with the problems outlined, few would subscribe to the solution proposed. With all due respect to Dietz and Bridgeland, not many of these professionals can access the kinds of resources and materials the authors probably take for granted. They still struggle with dial-up internet connections, if they have internet access at all; cannot afford or do not have foreign currency to pay for subscriptions to scientific journals or memberships of the professional societies Dietz and Bridgeland mention; and cannot leverage the kinds of grants to which Dietz and Bridgeland have access. They don't want to hear about a pie in the sky because they are already in some kind of steady or declining state they want to exit. The environmental crisis we face today, as emphasized by the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, requires out of the box thinking, innovative solutions, and sometimes risk-taking applications to reconcile the economy and ecology in a realistic manner. But the emphasis should be on reconciliation and realism. We should be working with governments and the private sector to build long term partnerships for capital investments in ecosystem protection, restoration, and mitigation and avoidance of damage, removal of pervasive subsidies and other barriers, development of new environmental technologies and practices, and creation of new "environmental markets." The time is right because many business leaders now recognize that environmentally related problems and disasters are resulting in huge outlays, lack of shareholder confidence, and massive investment risks. Nirmal Shah
IN RESPONSE TO SHAH, IF NOT SCB, WHO?We appreciate Shah's thoughtful comments on our editorial, and the opportunity to offer an "academic parry" to his "thrust." Shah offers no argument against our primary point that there is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation, and indeed seems to agree. His dispute is with our assertion that, given this conflict and the presumed desire of SCB members to find its resolution, we (SCB) need to address economic growth by offering a positive, sustainable alternative, e.g. the steady state economy (SSE). Shah does not provide an alternative vision, but states that a solution "requires out of the box thinking, innovative solutions and sometimes risk-taking applications to reconcile the economy and ecology in a realistic manner." We believe that setting the ultimate goal of a SSE meets those requirements. Anything short of steady state will represent a pernicious erosion of the natural capital that comprises wildlife habitats and supports the economy, and is, therefore, neither sustainable nor realistic. Shah's lament that the SSE is "untested" and has not been adopted by any global policy group is no reason to reject the concept, which is modeled after our scientific understanding of how large ecosystems function. It wasn't long ago, in the broad sweep of history, that capitalist democracy was an untested notion of political philosophers. Shah outlines some of the substantial political obstacles that will need to be overcome to establish a SSE. We acknowledge these obstacles. For example, we wholeheartedly agree that the United States needs to be the first to take responsibility for its profligacy. However, we do not agree that "globalization and climate change have overtaken the steady state thinkers." Instead, these phenomena increase the urgency of implementing a change of course. As Herman Daly and Joshua Farley point out in their textbook, Ecological Economics, we must develop policies in the context of current social, legal, and economic frameworks. Given our context, it will be quite a challenge to break through some of these obstacles (e.g. unfair income distribution), and it will not happen overnight. We do believe, however, that we can develop policies that will lead us toward an economy characterized by sustainable scale, just distribution of wealth, efficient allocation of resources, and maximal allowance of personal choice. We think one element of a long-term strategy to replace the economic growth paradigm with a SSE is to lend credibility and gravitas to the SSE concept by obtaining the endorsement of such reputable scientific societies as SCB. We therefore implore the members of SCB to embrace and promulgate the principles of sustainability and the vision of a SSE. With this consensual goal in mind, we can then productively debate the competing ideas of how to best achieve the goal.
Robert Dietz and William Bridgeland
|
|
||
|
|
||
Copyright © 2010 Society for Conservation Biology (SCB)
Direct questions, comments, and technical problems to the webmaster SCB is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization |