Bate for Conserving Biodive 6 ENVIRONMENT he human species entered the industrial age with a population of about one bil- lion and with biological di- versity possibly at an all-time high. Bio- logical resources were freely available for exploitation to support develop- ‘ment, But now, in the late 20th century, people are beginning to realize that bio- logical resources have limits, that those limits are being exceeded, and that ‘overexploitation results in a substantial loss of biological diversity. This is atime of extraordinary change in the relationship between people and the biological resources upon which their welfare depends. While the hu- ‘man population is growing explosively, the overall rate of species loss—already the highest in the past 65 million years —is growing faster still! At the same JEFFREY A. MeNEELY isthe chet conserva tion olfier of the World Conservation Union QUCK) in Gland, Swiverand. KENTON R. MILLER isthe program dirscior and WALTE ‘¥_ REID ie sn esacat in the Program in For this and Biodiersty atthe Wold Resources In {tte in Washington, D.C. RUSSELL A. MIT= ‘TERMEIER i the president and TIMOTHY B. WERNER is research asociate of Conserve tion International in Washington, D.C. This a ticle is based on the authors book, Consering the More's Biological Divers, published this Sear by the Would World Resoures Insiut, Conservation atonal, the World Wildife Fund, ‘World Bank. time that human activities are dimin- ishing Earth's capacity to support life, increased population and consumption are intensifying demands on the planet’s resources. The combined destructive impacts of a poor majority strugeling to stay alive and an affluent, resource- consuming minority are inexorably ‘eroding the buffer that has always ex- isted, at least on a global scale, between human consumption and the planet’s productive capacity. The erosion of the planet's life-sup- port systems is likely to continue until human aspirations come into line with the realities of Earth's capacities and processes, and civilization, thereby, be- comes sustainable over the long term. Consequently, the problems of con: serving biological diversity cannot be ‘Apr 1980rsity separated from the larger issues of s0- cial and economic development. ‘What will it take to stop the destruc- tion of the world’s biodiversity? How ‘can science be mobilized to help conser- vation? How can biodiversity contrib- ute to sustainable development? What information is required? Which prob- lems need to be addressed first?’ How can a host of initiatives be coordinated ‘most effectively? Where can the finan- cial backing be found to respond on a scale commensurate with the prob- lems? These questions were the subject, ofa recent study by five leading conser- vation and development organizations, which attempted to clarify the role of biodiversity in ecological and human affairs.” Why Conserve Biodiversity? Biodiversity is the variety of the world’s living species, including their ‘genetic diversity and the communities and ecosystems that they form. Today, this diversity of life is facing serious threats. Scientists concur that, at cur- rent rates of tropical forest loss and dis- turbance, rougitly $ to 10 percent of all tropical forest species will be lost per decade during the next quarter century.” The extinction criss is not restricted to tropical forests. Freshwater habitats are being altered dramatically as rivers Volume 32 Number are impounded and exotic species in- troduced. In the southeastern United States, for instance, 40 to 50 percent of the freshwater snails are extinct or near extinction, Oceanic islands, where ‘most of the extinctions of the past sev- eral thousand years have occurred, also remain among the most threatened ecosystems on Earth. Some 60 percent of the plant species native to the Galipagos Islands are threatened with extinction. Although the numbers of species that will be lost are greatest in tropical countries, the proportion of species at risk in the temperate zone is siill large. In 1988, the Center for Plant Conservation in Jamaica Plain, Massa- chusetts, estimated that more than 10 By Jeffrey A. McNeely, Kenton A. Miller, Walter V. Reid, Russell A. Mittermeier, and Timothy B. Werner percent of U.S. plant species and sub- species are in danger of extinction in their wild habitats.* ‘The loss of species and genetic diver- sity and the degradation of habitats land ecosystems represent an enormous cost to this generation and all future generations. Biological resources—the portion of biodiversity that is of actual ‘or potential use to people—provide the basis for most human enterprise. The species being lost today possess un- known food, medical, and industrial uses. The ecosystems being degraded through mismanagement of biological resources are losing their capacity 10 support the human populations de- Pendent upon them, and this degrada- tion is exacting further costs through soil erosion, siltation of reservoirs, lo- cal climate changes, desertification, and loss of productivity. Also, the ero- sion of genetic diversity among agricul- tural crops through such practices as the substitution of high-response culti- vars for local varieties hinders efforts to breed improved varieties. High-re- sponse cultivars often handicap small farmers who cannot afford the neces- sary expensive inputs like fertilizer and pesticides. The fundamental social, ethical, cul- tural, and economic values of biologi- cal diversity have long been recognized in religion, art, and literature, The ENVIRONMENT 17great interest of children in nature, the numerous wildlife clubs, the generous donations made to conservation organ- izations, the political support for green parties, and the popularity of zoos and wildlife films are personal and econom- je expressions of preference that show that the public does not think of biolog- ical resources merely in terms of their cash value. Nevertheless, policies that promote conservation can better com- pete for the attention of government and commercial decision makers if their advocates demonstrate the eco- nomic contribution that biological re- sources make to development. Even partial valuation of the benefits of con- serving biological resources can pro- de, at least, a lower limit to the full range of benefits that conservation contributes to national economic de- velopment. ‘Three main approaches have been used to determine the value of biologi- cal resources: * Consumptive-use valu volves assessing the value of resources, such as firewood, fodder, and game ‘meat, that are consumed directly, with- out passing through a market ** Productive-use valuation involves ae mS {(Above) Although temperate zones risk losing a large proportion oftheir species, the assessing the value of products that are commercially harvested and marketed, such as timber, fish, game meat, ivory, and medicinal plants, ‘* Nonconsumptive-use valuation in- volves assessing the indirect values of {greatest threat of species lose lee where most species live—in tropical ecosystems lke this fain forest in northern Guatemala. (Above right) Particularly threatened are species endemic to single, Isolated ecosystems, ke this volcanic crater on Isabela Island in the Galépagos ‘Archipelago. (Middle right) Monetary valuation of certain biological resources, ike this timber in the Pata Mal forest of southern Chile, is easier than valuing less tangible but perhaps more vital biological services, such as watershed protection. (Bottom right) A sea iguana suns itself ecosystem functions, such as watershed protection, photosynthesis, climate regulation, and soil production, along with the intangible values of keeping options open for the future and the pleasure of knowing that certain spe- cies exist.’ (See also, “In Fairness to Future Generations” by Edith Brown Weiss beginning on page 6.) Such methods of valuation reveal that biological resources confer much larger economic benefits than is typi- cally appreciated. For example, some 84 percent of the Canadian population participates in wildlife-related recrea- tional activities (a consumptive use), which provide Canadians with benefits that they declare to be worth $800 mil- ENVIRONMENT 1% ‘on the beach at Tortuga Bay in the Galépagos, species are threatened. lion (U.S.) annually.* In Sarawak, Ma- laysia, a detailed field study found that wild pigs harvested by hunters had an annual market value of about $100 mil- lion.” Policymakers often appreciate pro- ductive-use values more than consump: tive- oF nonconsumptive-use values be- cause productive-use values relate to large industries, such as forestry and fishing, which are connected to mar kets and, therefore, reflected in nation- al income accounts. Yet few people ap- preciate the magnitude of the contribu: tion of biological resources to national ‘where about 60 percent of the native plant ‘economies. One ground-breaking study that showed how to estimate the dollar value of biological resources and ana- lyzed the contribution of wild plant and animal species to the U.S. economy concluded that some 4.5 percent of the USS. gross domestic product is attribut- able to wild species.' In the late 1970s, 4.5 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product was about $87 billion per year. Although indirect values of biologi- cel resources are the most difficult 10 estimate, they actually may far out- weigh direct values. Species without cconsumptive- or productive-use values ‘Apel 1980Volume 32 Number may play important roles in the ecosys- tem and support species that are valued for their productive or consumptive uses. For example, the retention of a ‘wetlands complex outside Boston, Mass- achusetts, provides an annual savings of $17 million in flood protection alone —eacluding the many other benefits, such as sediment reduction, fish and wildife production, and aesthetic val- ues, that the wetlands afford area re dents.” In Thailand, the $1.5-mill cost of protecting the watershed of the Nam Pong Reservoir is more than jus- tified by the lessened rate of reservoir siltation, which requires expensive dredging," ‘Already enormous, the value of bio- logical resources to humans will grow as those resources shrink through envi- ronmental degradation. Diversity in genes, species, and ecosystems pro- vides the raw materials with which hue man communities adapt to change. Thus, the loss of each additional spe- cies, gene, and ecosystem reduces the ability of nature—and people—to adapt to the changing environment. Who is to Blame? ‘Where does the blame for the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of biological resources lie? On the sur- face, the answer seems clear. The prox: imate causes include large-scale clear- ing and burning of forests, excessive harvesting of plants and animals, indis- criminate use of pesticides, draining and filling of wetlands, destructive fishing practices, air poltution, and the conversion of wildlands to agricultural and urban uses. The root causes of biodiversity loss are found in basic economic, demo- graphic, and political trends. These root causes include the human demand for commodities, such as tropical hard- woods, wildlife, fiber, and agricultural products; the growth in human popula tion, which, even without proportional economic growth, places increasing de- ‘mands on natural resources and ecosys- tem processes that are already impover- ished and stressed; settlement policies that promote the migration of the grow- ing unemployed labor forces to frontier zones; debt burdens that force govern- ‘ments to encourage the production of commodities that can earn foreign ex- ‘change; energy policies that encourage inefficiency in many nations and, in so doing, add to the burden of air pollu- tants and the risk of substantial global climate change; and inappropriate land tenure arrangements that discourage rural people from investing in sustaina- ble agricultural practices ‘When biodiversity loss is defined as a result of its immediate causes, the re- sponse is to take defensive and, often, confrontational actions, such as enact ing laws, closing access to resources, and protecting additional areas. Such responses are necessary in times of rampant overexploitation, but they are seldom really sufficient to change the underlying social and economic causes. Defining the problem in terms of its root causes can stimulate a more con. structive response that secks coopera tive efforts to address the social and ‘economic foundations of resource de pletion. Six main obstacles make it hard to conserve biological diversity * National development programs undervalue biological resources mone- tary. * Overexploitation of biological re- sources yields great profit for traders and manufacturers (who can external- ize environmental costs) while impov- crishing the local people who have few other sources of livelihood and who must pay the environmental costs of overexploitation. * The species and ecosystems upon which human survival depends are still poorly known, ® Scientific research often does not ‘meet the needs of resource and protect- ed-area managers. * Conservation activities tend to be focused too narrowly. * Institutions assigned responsibil- ity for conserving biodiversity have lacked sufficient financial and organi- zational resources to do the job. These obstacles block progress in both developed and less developed coun- ENVIRONMENT 19,‘Some sites receive no government protection but are protected from intrusion by local traditions or belies. The Matsieng Sacred Creation Site in Botswana, once protected only by local belies, is now protected by the government. tries, However, because the tropics harbor a major proportion of the plan: et’s biological diversity and because overexploitation of resources in the tropics is linked to resource demand in the industrialized countries, the most pressing needs for action to conserve biodiversity are in developing coun- tries. Developed countries depend on tropi- cal resources for industrial materials, breeding material, pharmaceuticals, tourism destinations, and numerous other tangible and intangible benefits. However, the exploitation of the trop- ics by the industrialized countries has yielded great benefits without com- ‘mensurate investments in conservation ‘and without compensation for the em ronmental costs of overexploitation. Such factors as cheap labor, artificially 20 ENVIRONMENT low-priced raw materials, inappropri- ate development aid, and the control of commodity prices and interest rates hhave encouraged rapid resource deple- tion and destruction. The situation is worsening continuously through the ramifications of the developing world’s debt crisis and related rates. Steps to be Taken Conservation will succeed only if both proximate and ultimate causes of environmental degradation and species loss are addressed. The complex threats to biological diversity call for a wide range of responses from many private and public sectors, and the mix of these responses must be adjusted to suit local conditions. Because government poli- ies often are responsible for dep! ological resources, policy changes usually are a necessary first step toward conservation. National policies that deal directly with wildlands manage- ment or forestry or that influence re- source use indirectly by affecting, for example, land tenure, rural develop- ment, family planning, food prices, pesticide use, or fuel consumption can hhave significant impacts on the conser- vation of biodiversity. National and subnational conservation strategies can often provide the mechanism for iden- tifying necessary changes. ‘The best way to protect species is to protect habitats, and most national governments have established legal ‘means to do so. These means include creating national parks and other types Of reserves (some 4,500 major reserves exist covering nearly 500 million hec- tares); enacting local laws to protect particular forests, reefs, and wetlands; restricting private concession agree- ments; and establishing zoning regula- tions. The responsiblity for managing protected habitats often is spread wide- ly among public and private institu- tions. (See ‘Wildlands: Balancing Con- version with Conservation in World Bank Projects” by Robert Goodland and George Ledec in the November 1989 issue of Environment.) Although accomplishments to date are impres- ive, the amount of habitat protected ‘must be increased by a factor of three if, it isto make the necessary contribution to the conservation of biological diver- sity. Many of these new areas will need more flexible approaches to manage- ‘ment than are customarily used in na- tional parks. Protected habitats will succeed in realizing their conservation objectives only to the extent that the areas them- selves are managed effectively and that the land surrounding them is managed in a way compatible with the those ob- jectives. Implementing such manage- ment typically involves making pro- tected areas parts of larger, regional schemes designed to conserve natural resources, induce sustainable human use of the resource base, ensure that (continued on page 36) ‘Apel 1990Biodiversity (continued from page 20) benefits of the habitat protection reach the rural population, and involve the rural population in policy decisions re- lated to the protected areas. Ex situ preservation programs, such 1s 2008, aquaria, seed banks, and bo- tanical gardens, supplement in situ conservation by providing for the long- term storage, analysis, testing, and propagation of a few threatened and rare species of plants and animals and their propagules. Ex situ preservation is particularly important for wild spe- cies whose populations are greatly re duced in numbers and serves as a back- up to in situ conservation, as a source of material for reintroductions to the wild, and as a major repository of ge- netic material for future breeding pro- grams of domestic species. Some ex situ facilties—notably zoos and botanical gardens—provide important opportu- nities for public education, and many make important contributions to tax- ‘onomy and field research. Curbing the pollution of the bio- sphere is the biggest and most expen- sive conservation effort. Biological di- versity is threatened by various forms of chemical pollution, but ultimately, the gravest threat may be global climate change. Mean world temperatures ‘could increase by about 2°C in the next 40 years with an attendant rise in sea level of between 30 and 50 centime- ters." Although the species and ecosys- tems within protected areas will cer- tainly be affected by climate change, it is unrealistic to expect the boundaries Of existing protected areas to be moved to track the changing climate because ‘these areas usually are surrounded by more intensive human land uses. In- stead, new forms of intervention will be required to maintain the ecosystems deemed desirable. ‘Many responses to the loss of biolog- ical diversity have been supported by international legislation that has fos- tered global cooperation in conserva- tion, as has the Convention on Interna- mal Trade in Endangered Species, 36 ENVIRONMENT for example.'* However, species and ecosystems are still being exploited at rates that far exceed their sustainable yield. Recognizing the growing severity of threats to biological diversity and the increasingly international nature of the actions required to address the threats, the World Conservation Union (IUCN), based in Gland, Switzerland, and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), based in Nairo- bi, Kenya, have begun to prepare an in- ternational convention on the conser- vation of biological diversity. This ef- fort has gained broad support from many governments. For example, in 1988, the U.S. Congress passed. joint resolution, H.J. Res. 648, in support of the conservation of biological diversity.” Any strategy to foster the sustainable use of biological resources must be based ‘on public involvement. Indeed, initia- tives that do not involve local commu- nities generally are doomed to fail. In- digenous people in many parts of the world are especially reliant on natural resources for their cultural continuity and economic well-being. Their role in ‘conservation should be given particular attention, and they should be given op- portunities to participate as major play- ers in the design of conservation pro- grams affecting their resources. Local people should be closely associated with the authorities responsible for both the management of biological re- sources and the establishment and management of protected areas. Information Needs Effective action must be based on ac- ‘curate information, and the more wide- ly shared the information, the more likely it is that individuals and institu- tions will agree on the definition of problems and solutions. Developing and using information is, therefore, an essential part of conservation at all scales, from the local to the global com- munity. ‘The current state of knowledge about species and ecosystems is woefully in: adequate; detailed knowledge is still lacking on the distribution and popula tion sizes of even such large and well- ‘Species are only as sate as the habitats in which they live, (Right) A black-faced vervet monkey ‘sits In a tree in the Luangwa South National Park in Zambia, (Bottom) Birds feed along the shore ‘of Chale Swamp Lake in Tanzania, (Below) At the CChipangali reserve In Zimbabwe, the endangered killpspringer is bred in captivity. studied animals as African primates. It is self-evident that increasing knowl- ‘edge about the kind and variety of or- ‘ganisms that inhabit the Earth and the ways that these organisms relate to each other and to humans must be a foundation of conservation action. This basic inventory and research should be carried out simultaneously with field conservation efforts; the two activities cean be mutually reinforcing. To gain the necessary knowledge, scientists must ‘* conduct taxonomic surveys to doc- ‘ument the wealth of the world’s plant and animal species; ‘© undertake greatly expanded evo- logical research to determine how the ‘Apri 1990various pieces fit together, explain the population dynamics of species of par- ticular concern, assess the effects of fragmentation of natural habitats, and determine what management steps are required to enable ecosystems to flour ish with their full complements of spe- cies; * develop and improve mechanisms for ex situ preservation, including both captive propagation of species and their eventual release into natural oF re- stored ecosystems; ‘* monitor the changes in species di versity and ecosystem function as hu- man influences become more perva- Volume 32 Numbers * assess the ecological differences between relatively large but minimally disturbed ecosystems and ecosystems that have been heavily affected by hu- ‘mans to learn how to enhance produc- tivity and restore degraded ecosystems to a more productive state; and ‘* conduct social science research to determine how local people manage their resources and how changes in re- source availability and land use affect human behavior. Government agencies, local commu- nities, and conservation organizations all need information to manage biolog- ical resources more effectively. Tools that can help meet this need include ba- sic descriptions of flora and fauna, practical handbooks for field identifi- cation, rapid inventory techniques, and refined computer programs for species and habitat inventory. The need for in- formation about the tropics is particu- larly important because these areas hold most of the world’s biological di- versity and are losing species faster than scientists can record them. The highest priority for basic inventory work should be given to the most threatened sites of greatest diversity and local en- demism. The information contained in the species in these areas could disap- pear before humanity even knows what itis losing. Development agencies should sup- port national efforts to establish local, sectoral, and national information 1 agement systems by demonstrating methodologies, providing training op- portunities for taxonomists and biolo- tists, and subsidizing the publication of status reports. Universities, research institutions, and nongovernmental or- ganizations need to be strengthened so that they can help governments assess their biological resources. Closer work- ing relationships should be established between museums and other taxonom- ic-oriented institutions and those con. cemed with conservation of biological diversity. Priorities and Action Plans In 1982, when United Nations mem- ber governments approved the World Charter for Nature, they agreed that all species and habitats should be safe- guarded to the extent that it is techni- cally, economically, and politically fea- sible. Because resources for conserva- tion work are limited, effort spent in deciding what to do first will be repaid in savings of time, finances, and per- sonnel. But determining priorities is a ‘complex task. The genetic landscape is constantly changing through evolu tionary processes, and the world con- tains more variability than can be pro- tected by explicit conservation pro- grams. Furthermore, governments and private organizations have limited ca- pacity to deal with environmental prob- ENVIRONMENT 37lems, and many urgent demands com- pete for their attention. Governments, international organizations, and con- servation. agencies seeking to conserve biological diversity must be selective and ask which species and habitats ‘most merit public involvement in pro- tective measures. No generally accepted scheme exists for establishing priorities for the con- servation of biological diversity. Nor is it either possible or advisable for such a scheme to be devised, because each or- ganization and institution will choose different criteria for establishing prior- ities based on its specific goals. For ex- ample, to humanity at large, conserv- ing tropical forests matters more than conserving semi-arid deserts because the forests contain a tremendous varie- ty of life and heavily influence glo- bal climate. Locally, however, each re- sion’s biodiversity is equally valuable because it provides essential ecosystem services on which local people rely Neither perspective is necessarily cor- rect, for both reflect implicit value judgments. The various methods for establishing priorities, such as focusing on critical ecosystems, megadiversity countries," biodiversity hot spots, or endangered species, suggest different types of con- servation action and will result in the conservation of somewhat different 38 ENVIRONMENT subsets of the world’s biological re- sources. Each method has its own strengths and weaknesses depending on the objective for which the method was devised. One of the best ways to ensure that the various institutions involved in con- servation are in general agreement on priorities is to devise a strategy that de- scribes the basic problems, appropriate objectives, and possible courses of ac- tion, Strategies are translated into ac- tion through a more tactical process of the broad recommendations. ‘A global strategy is needed to pro Vide the framework for local and re- gional efforts and to give concise gui- dance on what options and opportuni- ties for action would achieve global goals while addressing local priorities. The global strategy needs to be sup- ‘Apri 19904uman population growth is a primary cause of tabitat destruction and species loss. ‘Above left) Park wardens in Chad fight a fre vet by poachers to flush game. (Lett) farmer sundles twigs for fuel in western india ‘Above) Modem purse-seine and driftnet fishing ‘ave helped put many fish on the endangered species list. ported by regional, national, local, and sectoral strategies and by action de- signed to meet specific needs. Such a strategy, dealing with all aspects of bic diversity including both marine and terrestrial ecosystems at all latitudes, is being prepared by a consortium of the World Resources Institute, IUCN, and UNEP, in close collaboration with nu- merous nongovernmental and govern- ‘mental institutions in both tropical and temperate nations. The purpose of the consortium’s Biodiversity Conserva- tion Strategy is to * develop avenues for international ‘cooperation on the conservation of bio- diversity and promote greater intema- tional financial support for activities of highest priority; * identify and promote the skills, management methods, and invest ments needed to provide more sustain- able benefits of biological resources to local people; * encourage the development or re- form of policies, laws, institutions, and administrative procedures to foster the Volume 32 Number’ maintenance and understanding of bio- logical diversity while increasing its lo- cal and national utility; * specify how the conservation of biological resources can be more effec- tively integrated with development and identify the conflicts between species conservation and other, related issues that are facing humanity, including population growth, increasing nonre- newable-resource consumption, and climate change; and * promote the further development of regional, national, and thematic ac- tion plans for the conservation of bio- logical diversity and aid their imple- ‘mentation. Financing Conservation Innovative funding mechanisms are needed to support conservation ef- forts. These mechanisms should be based on the principle that those who benefit from biological resources should ay more of the costs of ensuring that such resources are used sustainably. Efforts are required to ensure that at the community level, there are econom- ic incentives for conservation; that at the national level, government policies are compatible with such incentives; and that at the international level, the ‘wealthy nations benefiting from the biological resources of the tropics in- vest in conserving the productive ca- pacity of those resources. Approaches useful primarily at the national level in- clude charging entry and other user's fees in national parks, establishing user's fees for ecological services, col- lecting special taxes, incorporating conservation measures in large devel- ‘opment projects, returning profits from the exploitation of biological resoure- es, building conditionality into conces- sion agreements, seeking support from the private sector, and establishing en- dowments for conservation. Ap- proaches useful at the international lev- cl include conventions and treaties that provide financial support, direct assis- tance from conservation organiza- tions, debt-for-nature swaps, restricted currency holdings, and conservation concessions or easements."* ‘The attraction of many of these meth- ods is that the financial support for conservation is derived directly fom the values of the biological resources. |In general, conservation should be sup- ported to the maximum extent possible through the marketplace, but the mar- ketplace’s influence needs to be bound- ed by appropriate governmental poli- es. One problem faced by many of the potential conservation funding mecha- nisms is that the funds carned, say, through park entrance fees, might not be used for conservation but might, in- stead, be spent on other work that the government considers of higher priority In some countries, funding is not the major constraint to conservation. While conservation agencies never have suffi- cient funding and additional funding is certainly called for, even generous budgets will not lead to effective action if government polices in other sectors are incompatible with conservation. Therefore, any new funding mecha- nisms should be part of a package that includes necessary policy changes in such areas as national security, land tenure, energy, frontier settlement, foreign trade, and transportation. For conservation to succeed, the ma- jor requirement of government policy- takers is that they recognize the many values of biological resources and in- vest enough to ensure those resources’ continued productivity. Policymakers also need to be persuaded to create con- ditions whereby local communities or nongovernmental organizations can assume total management control of certain important biological resources or areas and seek their own funding in fan attractive tax and investment cli- mate. Innovative funding mechanisms backed by compatible government pol- ‘cies can overcome one of the major obstacles to progress in conse ‘The Last Opportunity ‘The elements now exist that could re- verse the trend toward the biotic im- poverishment of Earth. Novel ap- proaches, innovative funding mecha- nisms, and new policies need to be ap- plied to transtate these elements into a ENVIRONMENT 39‘ila varieties ‘crops, like this wild mountain wheat in the Himalayas, provide the genetic diversity needed for improving cultivars. reality of improved human welfare and ‘secure biotic heritage. In the words of Dan Janzen, tropical biologist and pro- fessor at the University of Pennsylva- nia in Philadelphia, “There is a fantas- set of biological and administrative building blocks scattered about the floor, but no reflective hand arranging them into a mutually reinforcing pat: tern and structure.” ‘The 19905 may be the last decade during which constructive and creative decisions, activities, and investments— 40. ENVIRONMENT rather than emergency rescue efforts— ‘can be made to ensure that many of the world’s species and ecosystems are maintained, examined for their materi- al and ecological value, and used sus- tainably to meet human needs. Main- taining the maximum adaptive varia- tion of life, the maximum cultural di- versity, and the greatest possible scien- tific endeavor would seem the most sensible way to prepare for the future. We are at a crossroads in the history ‘of human civilization. Our actions in the next few years will determine wheth- cer we turn down a road toward a chaot- ic future characterized by overexploita- tion and abuse of biological resources or take the opposite road toward main- taining great biological diversity and using natural resources sustainably. ‘The future well-being of human civil zation—and that of many of the 10 mil- lion other species that share this plan- et—hangs in the balance. NOTES 1. Waker V. Reid and Kenton R. Miler, Keping pions Ave: The Scene Bas for Conse ox thomay (Watingon, D.C= World Resources at ‘ae, 2.” efey A. MeNedy, Kenton R. Mir, Wall V ei, Rosi A Miers, and Tinh B- Wes Consnng the Words Bega! erst (Clad ‘Sztand, and Wathinton, D.C: Word Comer tn Union, Werks Reoures Insite, Consraton Incemonl, Woe Wise und, ao Word Bank, wo 3. Rei and Mie, aoe L above 4. Gamer for Pat Conservation, “CPC Endanee tent Survey” (ere for Plan Cosco, Janse Phin, Mase, 9 Decrabe 968, Macon 5. ley A, MeN, Eooromis and Biolog Diet: Derioping and Cin Economic Inctvs fo Comer Boop! Resowees (Gund, Switz Natural Remar, 589), 6 FLL. Pll, A Icquemot, and R. Rll, The Donne of Wake to Comat Via: Cann Ai Ser, 7. 1 Cabo, Hanne and Wf Manone 2 Sovak (lad, Sized: Wor! Coreration Union, 56. Jen, The Fist Resource (New Haven, Conn Yale Un verity Pros 80, 3. ay D, Ha, “The Econo f Conserving We Tead'A Wilening Cele” (Paper pete a Word ‘Comervation Union Genes! Asembly, Coxe Ri ery 18 TO. MM, Hai and R. Shardhana, THe ‘Nice Pos Wat Rsouses Project ft Thad” in vDaon and MM. siete, Booman: Ya ‘tion Tcigues forthe Eroronnwnt A Cine Study Workbook (ance, Ma. Jokes Hoptns Unies I, Sephen HL Scar, “he Grenhouse Ec Sense an Pay” Slee 243 (1999.71. PAL 090, UD, Sa. 281 (98H. 1 Norman Myer, “Tarealend Bits. Hoot? sn ropa Fors” The Eravormenialst 8, mo. 3 (iseo:1, and Rise A. Minemer, "sate De {Wan Nadagatar an be importance of he Meza ‘erty Cotes n EO. Wik and FM. Pele ‘ins Becherty Watingion, D.C! National Aca Shy Prem 988 1S. Wort Remarc Iatite, Natural Endowments Phang. Resoune’ Consvaton for Denlopment (iB Ws Recarnn, ) ‘olga Dery tt To. 6 (1989) 8-13, 1. Dan ae, ert Kenton R. Ml, Sept ‘Apel 1980