Tropical Forest Biodiversity Protection: Who Pays and Why

People value biodiversity found in tropical rain forests for a variety of utilitarian, aesthetic, moral, ecological, and socioeconomic reasons (Botkin and Talbot, 1992). For instance, traditional medicines derived from plant and animal species found in the tropics provide health services to rural and urban populations; about 25 percent of the pharmaceutical products produced in the United States are associated with plants (WRI et al., 1992). Genetic materials extracted from plant and animal species have contributed to the development of commercial agricultural products (e.g., new varieties of wheat, maize, and rice) that are more resistant to pests and diseases. And nature tourism, often associated with protected wildlife habitats, has become an important source of income, generating about $ 12 billion annually in worldwide earnings (Lindberg, 1991). There are important socioeconomic and political considerations in the valuation of biological resources and the protection of biodiversity. First, the benefits that result from biodiversity have spatial and temporal dimensions. The ecological services linked with biodiversity, such as clean air and water, and the use of genetic material and ingredients extracted from plants, animals, and microorganisms, occur at different places and at different times, often beyond the “economic time scale” of individuals. Second, biodiversity has characteristics of a public good locally arid nationally and may be considered a “global environmental good” in an international context. The benefits of public goods flow to all people regardless of whether they have paid for the good, which means that public goods suffer from the problem of “free riders.” In a national context, economists have long focused attention on the difficulty of financing public goods and have generally concluded that such goods will be underprovided by markets. In the international context, the provision and financing of public goods is even more problematic. These characteristics make management of biodiversity institutionally complex and create problems in defining property rights. Third, conservation of biodiversity can create significant nonuse values. By its very existence, biodiversity can generate economic value without requiring actual use and can provide value by leaving open the option of future use.

Toward a New Protection Paradigm

During the past century, the standard measure for safeguarding the maintenance of biodiversity has been the establishment of protected areas in which consumptive uses by humans are minimized. Over the years, the design of protected areas has evolved from the creation of small refuges for particular species to the protection of entire ecosystems that are large enough to maintain most if not all their component species and that are mutually interconnected wherever possible. While many other, equally important, measures are now being contemplated and implemented (e.g., comprehensive land-use planning, sustainable development), protected areas remain the cornerstone of all conservation strategies aimed at limiting the inevitable reduction of this planet’s biodiversity (e.g., World Conservation Strategy, Caring for the Earth, Global Biodiversity Strategy). Existing protected rain forest areas suffer from an array of problems that reduce their effectiveness in a broad conservation strategy. They cover a scant 5 percent of tropical rain forest habitats (WCMC, 1992)— arguably not enough to forestall species extinction, especially since the proportions of areas protected vary appreciably from region to region. Protected areas are often not sited appropriately, and they are often too small to maintain the full diversity of their communities. They will in future be affected by external forces (Neumann and Machlis, 1989), such as changes in local climates caused by extensive deforestation, pollution, or fires emanating from outside; introduced exotic species; and global climate change, which in parts of the tropics will likely manifest itself as an increase in the frequency of long droughts. Fortunately, these existing and anticipated threats are being addressed in some countries and regions by measures such as integrated land-use planning, redesigning parks, and establishing corridors, although ecologists are concerned that not enough is being done (see chapter 3). These shortcomings of protected area networks are significant and need to be redressed, but human activities currently pose far more serious threats to protected areas.

Compensation and Economic Incentives: Reducing Pressure on Protected Areas

Although the global social benefits of establishing protected areas in tropical rain forests may outweigh the total costs, the local private costs of restricting access to an important resource may be relatively substantial for residents and communities. The imbalance between costs accruing at the local level and benefits accruing at the national and international levels has raised questions about whether people living in or near protected areas ought to be compensated for their losses, and if so, how compensation should be made. The issue of compensating residents for lost resources has been discussed, implicitly or explicitly, in many treatments of the relationship between protected areas and local people, as well as in treatments of externalities. (Economists define externalities as actions of consumers or producers that affect the well-being of others in a way that is not reflected through prices or economic transactions.) In the literature on compensation, there is a large difference of opinion on whether compensation should be paid to victims of negative externalities, which include such things as the pollution of air or water and the siting of hazardous waste dumps. A number of studies have argued for compensation of those people subject to negative externalities, at least in particular situations or through particular mechanisms Oohnson, 1977; O'Hare, 1977; Western, 1982; Knetsch, 1983; Ward, 1986; Tietenberg, 1988; Hodge, 1989; Sullivan, 1990, 1992; Barnett, 1991; Burrows, 1991; McNeely, 1991; Miceli, 1991; Farber, 1992; Pollot, 1993). Other authors, mainly economists, have argued equally persuasively against compensation in many or all situations (Knetsch, 1983; Blume et al., 1984; Baumol and Gates, 1988). Most of the differences of opinion derive from differences in the context of the case examined, the assumptions made, the criteria used for judging the desirability of outcomes, interpretations of relevant laws, and the proposed mechanism for compensation. In the context of protected areas, most authors have argued in favor of compensating residents (e.g., Western, 1982; Barnett, 1991; McNeely, 1991). A unique best choice regarding compensation is not indicated in economic and political theory. Few protected area projects have attempted large-scale compensation initiatives; thus, there are few field examples to guide the discussion.

User Rights and Biodiversity Conservation

The management of tropical forests has evolved considerably during recent decades. In the 1970s, the colonial and postindependence emphasis on maintaining large plantations and maximizing timber production gave way to a dual emphasis on revenue generation and social forestry. More recently, the international community, including developing countries themselves, has begun to recognize the important environmental services provided by tropical forest resources, including water quality, soil retention, biodiversity, and microclimate and macroclimate regulation. Just as the prevailing view of appropriate objectives for tropical forest management has changed, so has support for the devolution, or transfer, of rights to local people. Under the previous forest-management paradigm, which stressed revenue generation and social forestry, governments and international aid agencies encouraged nationalization of forests and the gazetting of land into systems of state forest preserves. This served, perhaps unintentionally but nevertheless forcefully, to restrict the rights of locals. But as the relationship between the landless poor, indigenous groups, and the forest resource came to be better understood, more consideration was given to allowing communities to retain or gain customary and/or legal rights to the forest resource. Now, however, by adding the protection of environmental services to the management paradigm, the effects on the devolution of rights to local people are much less clear. On the one hand, some would argue that the only way to vest locals in the maintenance of the forest resource is to give them specific, income-enhancing rights to its use. On the other hand, examples abound of local populations who have exploited the forest resource in ways that are not sustainable, destroying fragile ecological relationships and degrading the biodiversity of the area in the process. The support for devolution of rights has waxed and waned over the years, with its popularity dependent on both international politics and the world economy. The question of whether to devolve rights becomes especially complicated when considering the fate of protected areas in the tropical developing world. Within the protected areas themselves, user rights exercised by local people either can be relatively benign or can have devastating effects on the local ecosystem.

The Ecological Foundations of Biodiversity Protection

Two thirds of all known species occur in tropical regions, and probably half of all species are confined to tropical rain forests—yet these rain forests are among the most threatened of all natural habitats. Throughout the tropics, rain forests are being destroyed at an alarming rate. It has been estimated that, worldwide, approximately 170,000 square kilometers of rain forests—an area almost as great as Cambodia—are being lost every year (FAO, 1990). Few tropical countries retain more than half of their natural forest cover, and even those that do are witnessing rapid habitat conversion. Figure 3-1 illustrates the decline of primary forest cover on Sumatra during the past 60 years, a picture that is duplicated over much of tropical Asia. The Indonesian archipelago, as a whole, loses at least 9,000 square kilometers of forest each year to logging, land conversion, and shifting agriculture (MoF/FAO, 1991). In some years, the figure is even higher. In 1982 and 1983, for example, severe drought and fires (often deliberately started) damaged 36,000 square kilometers of forest—an area the size of Belgium—in East Kalimantan in Indonesian Borneo (Lennertz and Panzer, 1983) and another 10,000 square kilometers in Sabah (Malingreau et al., 1985). Destruction of tropical habitats leads to the irreversible loss of biological diversity and genetic resources. Conservation of biodiversity will require a concerted effort to provide adequate and effective protection of tropical forests and their native species. The best, easiest, and least expensive way to achieve this goal is to establish networks of protected rain forest areas for in situ conservation of gene pools, species, and ecosystems. Forest destruction is proceeding so fast that this decade is probably the last chance to protect extensive areas of tropical forests; indeed, for some countries it is already too late. While this chapter focuses primarily on tropical Asia, many of the lessons and recommendations apply equally well to the rain forests of Africa and Central and South America. The question of how much protected habitat is enough has long been debated by conservationists and other scientists.

Preservation Paradigms and Tropical Rain Forests

Tropical rain forests are disappearing rapidly as a result of increasing human encroachment. During the past century, tropical rain forests have been reduced to about half of their original area. And the rate of deforestation is accelerating, fueled by population growth in developing countries and resource demands in the developed countries. The remaining forests are subject to increasingly intensive human use. Deforestation, fragmentation, and exploitation cause a plethora of problems, including soil erosion; siltation of rivers, lakes, and estuaries; increased flooding and droughts; release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; and loss of species. In recent years, these problems have become the subject of international concern. This book focuses on the loss of biodiversity in tropical rain forests and on the role of protected areas in stemming the loss. This chapter examines the meaning of biodiversity and the history of the park movement in the tropics. What began as protection of habitat through the exclusion of people has transformed into sustainable use of biological resources. This new emphasis provides local control of important resources and greater income, but does it conserve habitat and species? We will argue that a renewed focus on protected areas as the primary storehouse of biodiversity is needed. We will also make the case for a focus on the tropical rain forest biome and will conclude with an overview of the rest of the book. In its strict sense, biodiversity refers to the “variety and variability among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur” (Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, 1987:3). This definition can be extended both downward to cover genetic variability within a species and upward to include habitat and ecosystem diversity. practical terms, however, biodiversity is most profitably expressed as species diversity (weighted for rarity, endemism, and taxonomic distinctiveness, if necessary) at the landscape level (see chapter 6). We adopt this definition of biodiversity. During the past few years, attempts to link rain forest protection with sustainable development have led to a noticeable expansion of the meaning of the phrase “biodiversity conservation.”

Biodiversity Politics and the Contest for Ownership of the World's Biota

In the course of the past decade, biodiversity has become one of the most important concepts guiding conservation and development at the global level. From the 1972 U.N. Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm, to the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro, concern for biodiversity loss has spawned international treaties, national laws, and community conservation strategies. This concern for biodiversity, however, has not been clearly translated into increased conservation of biodiversity, for a variety of fundamental reasons. Biodiversity has traditionally been the domain of natural scientists and conservation activists. The first group has focused on the importance of biological diversity for scientific inquiry; the second group has concentrated on the impact of lost biological diversity on social and ecological systems, and has advocated policies to conserve the earth’s biota. Increasingly, both groups-and many other constituencies, from sport hunters and fishers to pharmaceutical companies—have fought out the battle over biodiversity in public arenas. The weapons have included national parks and protected areas, species and genetic conservation programs in the field and in other locations such as zoos, private nongovernmental organizations chartered for “‘genetic prospecting” activities, and integrated small-scale development programs that have a putative conservation side-benefit. Even as this battle continues, some agreement—if not a consensushas begun to emerge about biodiversity, which has provided a foundation for common cause among the various constituencies described above. Conservation has become use. The value of biodiversity has come to be determined according to economic criteria alone. Conservation and sustainable development, it is declared, not only can go together but are part of the same cloth. Ecological values and economic values are purported to be congruent. This position masks two disturbing realities that underpin the specific tasks of this chapter. The first reality is that the concerns that fostered the original concept of biodiversity have been surrendered—even forgotten—in the struggle for common ground, to the detriment of science and conservation. The second is that biodiversity and sustainability are far from scientific concepts.

Policy and Practical Considerations in Land-Use Strategies for Biodiversity Conservation

Much attention has been given to the issues of sustainable use, sustainable development, and biodiversity conservation, as well as to the relationships among them. Some observers express a sense of optimism that implementing sustainable activities worldwide will lead to the conservation of biodiversity. In the popular media, there are examples almost daily of conservation success stories. But publicity for conservation and attention on biodiversity are being mistaken for solutions. What is perhaps more sobering than equating publicity with actions, or actions with solutions, is that the entire rubric of sustainability, in the rural context, has a set of questionable assumptions that underlies the portfolio of activities being implemented to conserve biodiversity. These assumptions have had a major impact in shaping the range of activities that have been developed to address the conservation of biodiversity— from policies (such as the Biodiversity Convention adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit) to projects implemented by conservation and development organizations worldwide (such as the Global Environmental Facility). The questionable assumptions fit into the following seven broad categories: • Method. Biodiversity conservation can best be accomplished through field-based activities, such as establishing parks and reserves. • Use. Sustainable use is possible under a variety of management regimes ranging from private to communal. Dependence on wildlands resources is most likely to ensure their long-term conservation. • Incentives. Appropriate sets of incentives can be readily defined and will influence people to conserve biodiversity. • Management. Management should be devolved to local control whenever possible. • Technology. Technical and organizational solutions exist to improve resource management and production activities in areas with great biodiversity. • Poverty Mitigation and Development. Rural poverty-mitigation and development strategies will lead to conservation and maintain biodiversity. • Social. Local people are cooperative and live in harmony with one another and with nature. These assumptions, and their implications, are increasingly being questioned as concern mounts that their implementation may lead to serious loss of biodiversity (see Ludwig et al., 1993; Robinson, 1993).

The Silent Crisis: The State of Rain Forest Nature Preserves

The principal response of the global community to the threats against biodiversity has been the establishment of strictly protected areas, exemplified by the National Park System of the United States. In such areas, consumptive uses are banned and wild nature is allowed to exist in untrammeled form. Nonconsumptive recreational uses—such as sightseeing, hiking, swimming, boating, and camping—are permitted but are regulated as to place and time and number of participants. In the tropical forest realm, however, protected nature preserves are in a state of crisis. A number of tropical parks have already been degraded almost beyond redemption; others face severe threats of many kinds with little capacity to resist. The final bulwark erected to shield tropical nature from extinction is collapsing. The predictable and unpredictable ecological processes likely to affect the future ability of protected rain forest areas to retain their full biodiversity are examined in chapter 3. While the potential impact of ecological processes could be severe, they are amenable to technical solutions and could be solved given sufficient resources and knowledge. A far more immediate and significant threat is posed by human activities. Indeed, the crisis of parks in the tropics results primarily from increasing human pressure on all unexploited natural resources, aggravated by ineffective protection. Pressure on parks is exerted on local, regional, and national scales, usually taking the form of illegal land appropriation or resource extraction. The attack on tropical parks is being pressed by four main classes of actors: local and displaced populations of agriculturalists and extractors, governments, resource-robbing elites, and (in a few cases) indigenous forest-dwelling populations. In this chapter, we discuss the root causes of the actions of each of these groups and of the institutional failure that results in ineffective enforcement of park legislation. many common themes, regardless of the geographic area to which they pertained, and one theme in particular stood out: despite legal status and the presence of conservation officers, protected areas are not safe from illegal appropriation and exploitation. Our perception is that the threat to tropical parks is not widely appreciated.

Minimizing Species Loss: The Imperative of Protection

The major rush of extinctions under way in tropical rain forests is caused by habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, and overexploitation of species useful or threatening to humans. As burgeoning human populations continue to claim an ever greater share of the world’s renewable resources, intensification of land use will make it increasingly difficult to maintain biodiversity outside of strictly protected nature preserves. Further, because many species can maintain themselves only in large expanses of unaltered or lightly disturbed habitat, fully protected areas should remain the cornerstone of any conservation strategy that aims at minimizing the loss of tropical biodiversity. We have identified five principal forces of extinction in a humandominated world: deforestation, habitat fragmentation, overkill, secondary extinction, and introduced species. In this chapter, we briefly review the manner in which each of these processes contributes to extinction, both as isolated forces and in synergism with other forces. Our conclusion is that all five forces of extinction can be minimized by retaining intact natural habitat in the largest possible blocks. As the human population continues to expand, it is inevitable that most land outside strictly protected nature preserves will be subject to increasingly intensive use, resulting in decreased biodiversity. We therefore argue that maintaining biodiversity can best be achieved through development planning at the largest practical spatial scales. Parks should be as large as possible, designed to benefit from passive protection (inaccessibility), and rigorously protected. Only through major strengthening of institutions responsible for park protection can we expect to see tropical biodiversity survive the coming century. The earth is experiencing an extinction crisis because the human population is increasing rapidly and laying claim to an ever larger share of land and resources. Simultaneously, nearly all individual humans fervently desire to increase their level of material well-being. The resulting double impetus for rapid economic expansion generates exponentially increasing demands for most renewable and nonrenewable resources. The world is consequently experiencing a wave of nonsustainable use of most basic, life-supporting resources, including soil, groundwater, forests, grasslands, and fisheries. The earth’s population today is 5.5 billion, and it is increasing by more than 90 million per year.