Executive Summary: The Root Causes of Biodiversity Loss
The international community has agreed that biodiversity loss is a significant global problem.
Yet, the increasing rate of loss around the world tells us that the approaches we have adopted are
simply not adequate to halt the current destructive momentum of biodiversity loss. On one level,
the problem lies with the significant magnitude of the forces driving biodiversity loss. On a
more fundamental level, however, the problem stems from a failure to understand and respond to
the underlying socioeconomic root causes of such loss.
The socioeconomic root causes of biodiversity loss are the set of underlying factors that drive
biodiversity loss, but whose distance from the actual incidence of loss, either in space or time,
often make them difficult to identify and remedy. Recognizing that the race to conserve
biodiversity is being lost, the global community must begin to grapple with these complex issues
in a more systematic and meaningful way. WWF's Socioeconomic Root Causes of Biodiversity
Loss Project was created to move this process forward.
The Evolving Consensus on Biodiversity Loss
The foundations of the failure to adequately address the root causes of biodiversity loss can be
traced to a less than perfect global consensus on how to address biodiversity loss. This political
consensus was largely shaped in the lead-up to the 1992 UN Conference on the Environment and
Development.
During this time period, the international debate on global environmental problems was
primarily defined by traditional North-South dynamics. Developed countries believed that the
South was interested in sustainable development only to leverage resource transfers from the
developed world. On the other side, developing countries suspected that the North was using the
environment to impose further conditions on the terms of their economic development.
Developing countries argued that much of global environmental degradation could be linked to
Northern consumption patterns and that Northern countries had a historical responsibility to pay
for mitigating environmentally destructive practices.
With pressure building to take action on global environmental problems, the governments of the
world struck a less-than-perfect bargain. Countries agreed to increase funding to address global
environmental issues while not placing constraints on a country's economic planning. In effect,
strategic thinking about global environmental problems and sustainable development gave way
to a more politically expedient solution of providing financing strictly for the environment. This
consensus served as the guiding framework for how the global community understood and acted
on biodiversity loss. The consensus was expressed in legal conventions and institutional
mechanisms created to deal with biodiversity loss such as the CBO, GEF, etc.
More recently, important change has taken place within the conservation and scientific
communities about ways to address biodiversity loss. A growing body of research demonstrated
how macroeconomic and social policies operating at national or international scales significantly
affect on the environment. At the same time, scientists realized that conservation objectives
require a larger geographical definition of what needs to be conserved. This has led the
conservation community to call for a "scaling-up" of conservation approaches.
In light of this evolution in conservation thinking, the inadequacies of the global political
consensus on biodiversity loss become even more apparent. While evidence is growing that
national and international policies and incentives influence biodiversity loss in significant ways,
the current global political consensus effectively serves to separate biodiversity loss from
broader economic development processes.
Clearly, if the race against biodiversity loss is to be won, a new approach that more effectively
integrates socioeconomic policies with environmental concerns is needed. Existing approaches
to arrest biodiversity loss on a local scale must be coupled with approaches to address the
broader forces influencing biodiversity loss. Evidence from the conservation community shows
that the foundations of this new approach have already begun to emerge. This developing
consensus rests on two main assumptions:
* Conservation strategies must be multi-disciplinary in nature and based on analyses of the
complexity of factors that drive biodiversity loss; and
* Conservation of biodiversity must be undertaken at a variety of scales simultaneously.
A Framework for Analyzing the Root Causes of Biodiversity Loss
To find more effective conservation solutions to escalating global biodiversity loss, a deeper
understanding of the driving forces behind that loss is essential. This necessarily involves
tackling head-on the complexity and variety of social and economic factors. In taking up this
challenge, the Root Causes of Biodiversity Loss Project was faced with an immediate difficulty.
No systematic framework was available for conducting such integrated and multidisciplinary
studies.
Clearly, a wealth of research work has been done to analyze and document the immediate causes
of biodiversity loss. Moreover, a growing body of research had gone beyond analyzing
proximate causes to explore the broader influences driving environmental degradation and
biodiversity loss. These studies primarily focused on five main areas, including demographic
change; poverty and inequality; public policies, markets and politics; macroeconomic policies
and structures; and social change and development. Many of the existing studies, however, had
taken distinctly sectoral or thematic approaches, rarely going beyond the analysis of a single
socioeconomic factor. Even fewer studies examined how different socioeconomic factors
interact with each other or how these factors operate at local, national, and international scales.
In light of this situation, the first step for the Root Causes Project was clear. The important work
conducted on socioeconomic causes of biodiversity loss had to be integrated into a single
analytical framework. From our efforts to integrate this prior work, the MPO developed a new
Analytical Approach whose purpose was to provide a practical yet system-wide methodology for
capturing the complexity of causal factors driving biodiversity loss (See Box 1). The Approach
provides a unifying framework for describing how the various parts of the puzzle -- from local
2
demographic factors to national politics to international market forces -- are linked together to
drive biodiversity loss at a particular site.
Box 1 Four Basic Steps of the Analytical Approach
TEN CASE STUDIES – AN OVERVIEW
Ten research teams applied the Analytical Approach and analyzed the underlying forces that
drive biodiversity loss. A complex interplay of the driving factors was found at each site, some
of them unique to the specific site, while other factors are common among the case studies.
Abstracts of the ten case studies will introduce the reader to the findings.
Brazil:
Government policies in Brazil have driven the rapid expansion of large-scale commercial
agriculture in the Cerrado region. Agricultural development has had a dramatic impact on the
ecosystems where it has taken hold. However, government policies were more successful in
introducing this agricultural model in some places than others, depending not only on physical
conditions but also on socioeconomic conditions.
Cameroon:
The bushmeat and wildlife trade in Cameroon is a growing threat to biodiversity. The
development of a network of commercial hunters and markets is closely linked with Cameroon’s
dependence on primary product exports, including agricultural products and timber, which has
led to land clearing and road construction without relieving local poverty.
China:
In two counties in China, agricultural expansion and commercial logging are destroying the
habitat of the Giant Panda and the Yunnan Snub-nosed Monkey. Deforestation is the result of
limited economic opportunities and government policies that have led to unproductive
agricultural expansion and created a heavy dependence on commercial logging.
Danube Basin:
Environmental degradation of the Danube River Basin is centuries long. Some of the causes of
habitat alteration and biodiversity loss are found to be historic and irreversible, such as the 40year period of socialist government in Bulgaria and Slovakia. Other causes are still driving
biodiversity loss in the current period of economic and political transition and offer a place for
intervention to halt the unsustainable use of resources.
India:
The rapid expansion of commercial aquaculture, particularly prawn culture, in Chilika Lake is
contributing directly and indirectly to the decline of the lake’s fisheries and world-renowned bird
population. Changes both in India’s economic policies and in global markets have caused a rapid
rise in the price of prawns and the abandonment of traditional fishing patterns in favor of
aquaculture.
3
Mexico:
In the isolated region of Mexico under study, rapid population growth and persistent poverty are
driving forest clearing that threatens a biosphere reserve. Failure to address the problems of
poverty and social conflict underlies this threat to conservation. Government policies intended to
improve the use of resources, including recent changes in tenure laws, do not have their intended
impact in such a marginalized region that has only limited links with markets.
Pakistan:
Coastal mangrove ecosystems in Pakistan have been seriously degraded over the last 50 years as
a result of freshwater diversion for agriculture, industrial and urban water pollution, and overfishing. These proximate causes are largely driven by national policies that have favored
agriculture and industry over the coastal regions and that have given high priority to exports.
Philippines:
Three islands in the Philippines illustrate the strong correlation between population density and
biodiversity loss. The study explores the root causes of population trends on the three islands to
show how different historical patterns of political and economic power and access to land
continue to shape resource use and biodiversity loss today.
Tanzania:
In the mangrove forests of Tanzania’s river deltas, poverty and isolation drive degradation of the
local natural resources. Persistent conflicts among government policies, failure to enforce
environmental laws, and centralization of decision-making about resource management
aggravate the impacts of poverty.
Vietnam:
This study of three protected areas in Vietnam illustrates how the impact of population pressures
and poverty on forests and biodiversity are shaped by international conflicts, national policies,
and ideologies.
Main Findings and Conclusions of the Root Causes Project
Using the Analytical Approach, Root Causes research teams were able to construct a more
complete picture of the complex web of socioeconomic factors driving biodiversity loss at ten
case study sites around the world. Individual case studies provide insight into the fine nuances of
how socioeconomic forces manifest themselves at the local level to drive biodiversity loss at a
particular sight. This intricate understanding of the forces at play enables the identification of
critical points where intervention can help halt the loss of biodiversity.
In addition to the importance of the complexity captured in the case studies, a comparison of
findings across the case studies also leads to a greater understanding of root causes of
biodiversity loss on a much broader level. While it is important to acknowledge that drawing
general conclusions from the richness of the case studies may lead to oversimplification, such
generalities allow us to see the most important cumulative pressures driving biodiversity loss
4
across the globe. These common factors illuminate the most pressing challenges the international
community must face in global efforts to conserve biodiversity.
The case studies show that common drivers of biodiversity loss fall into three main categories,
domestic pressures, international pressures and policy responses (See Box 2).
Box 2 Common Causes of Biodiversity Loss
These factors all have direct impacts on resource use, often manifested in expanded use and
extraction of biological resources with consequent negative effects on habitats and species. But
these socioeconomic forces also have more insidious effects that often go unrecognized and
unaddressed because of their complex and indirect linkages. The main lesson learned from the
case studies is that effective and long-term conservation of biodiversity requires approaches that
address a number of socioeconomic factors in concert while also tackling the proximate or
immediate causes.
Domestic Pressures
Domestic pressures most often drive biodiversity loss by exerting more and more direct pressure
on resources. The most common domestic pressures found in the case studies were demographic
change, poverty, inequality, and isolation. While it is inappropriate to attribute biodiversity loss
to any single factor, these factors reinforce one another and influence biodiversity loss in similar
ways. The case studies show that domestic factors contribute to biodiversity loss through the:
* over-exploitation or over-use of existing biological resources;
* expansion of resource and land use practices into new areas, including marginal lands or
protected areas; and
* introduction of new techniques that prove inappropriate or environmentally destructive in the
new settings.
Demographic Change. Demographic change, including natural population growth and
migration, affects biodiversity in a variety of ways. Natural population growth in many of the
case study sites is attributed to poverty, limited education, and poor access to reproductive health
services. In the absence of population control measures, ever-increasing human populations
place direct demands and pressures on existing natural resources. This often leads to harvesting
of resources at unsustainable rates. As many rural poor populations largely depend on
subsistence agriculture for their livelihoods, population pressures also lead to an expansion of
agricultural lands. At many case study sites, most of the land that is suitable for agriculture is
already under production. Population pressures force people to expand cultivation onto
remaining marginal lands, commonly resulting in the environmental degradation of these lands.
In some cases, agricultural encroachment of biodiversity-rich areas, including those that are
protected, poses a significant threat.
Migration also has been implicated in biodiversity loss at many case study sites. Migration
originates from a variety of causes, including wars and civil unrest, lack of perceived economic
5
opportunities and scarcity of resources due to population growth or deliberate government
resettlement programs. People are frequently compelled to move to other areas in search of land,
resources, and new opportunities to support themselves. Often, people looking to move to
unoccupied or less densely occupied areas turn to protected sites to provide these livelihood
opportunities. In many cases, such encroachment leads to rapid environmental deterioration at
these sites. In other studies, we found that migrants may bring with them new techniques for
utilizing resources that prove environmentally destructive in these new settings.
Poverty. Poverty is linked with the poor management of natural resources at the case study sites.
Limited access to resources, infrastructure or opportunities characterizes economic
marginalization of the poor. Growing population pressure often exacerbates resource shortages,
leading to overuse of existing natural resources. Frequently, poor land quality prevented
immigrants from establishing more sustainable management patterns.
In addition to a lack of resources, poverty is also often manifested in a lack of control over
resources. A desperate economic situation coupled with this lack of control often leads to shortterm resource management strategies. People use whatever they can to support themselves, with
little time or resources left to invest in resource conversation. Furthermore, these people often
lack access to the resources, skills, or educational opportunities needed to adopt more sustainable
resource use practices. Central governments deliberately removed decision-making authority or
ownership of resources from local hands, effectively removing incentives for sustainable use and
further reducing opportunities for locals to extract greater benefits from those resources.
Inequality is often closely tied to poverty within the case studies. Inequality of access, quality,
size, location and ownership of land, and other resources drive biodiversity loss. In a variety of
cases, wealthy populations or governments appropriate the best lands and other valuable
resources for themselves. Such inequality may drive poor populations onto marginal lands that
are prone to environmental degradation.
Isolation. In addition to poverty, isolation and an associated lack of access to markets, education
or other social and economic resources also drives resource degradation. The case studies show
that even in the most isolated sites, local people cannot subsist entirely outside of the cash
economy. Lacking alternatives, they exploit natural resources to meet these cash needs. In many
cases, poor infrastructure results in the overexploitation of certain resources that are the most
readily marketable.
International Pressures
The case studies show that most prevalent international pressures driving biodiversity loss across
the globe are generally of two types, macroeconomic change and trade factors. Globalization has
led to an increased flow of goods, capital and ideas among many countries and increased the role
of international organizations in shaping national macroeconomic and sectoral policies,
ultimately magnifying the effects of macroeconomic and trade pressure on domestic natural
resources. While these pressures operate in complex and distinct ways, the case studies show
that in agricultural and extractive economies both types of pressure tend to promote biodiversity
loss through:
6
* an increased reliance on-reliance on natural resources to meet macroeconomic goals and
foreign capital needs, leading to ecosystem conversion and unsustainable levels of consumption
* a failure to acknowledge and address long-term environmental costs associated with economic
growth objectives, leading to the adoption of environmentally destructive practices.
Macroeconomic Change. Both globalization and a trend toward economic liberalization have
resulted in the increased influence of international markets and structures on national policies.
Even the most isolated of regions have become increasingly subject to the influence of
international market forces. Governments have frequently sought to mitigate effects of
international markets and to promote national development through macroeconomic policies that
alter prices and place controls on trade, capital flows, exchange rates, and national markets. All
of these changes have consequences for production and resource use that are played out at the
local level. In many cases, the long-term environmental impacts of such policies go unnoticed.
Structural adjustment programs, initiated to regain macroeconomic stability and promote
economic growth in many countries, have tended to focus on expanding export production,
liberalizing markets, and reducing national budgets. A demand for foreign exchange to service
debts and support imports has provided an impetus for developing countries to mine their natural
resources for exports. To a lesser degree, private sector access to natural resources also has been
opened up to meet these demands. At the same time that policy changes are boosting production
for export, budget cuts in social services often lead to exacerbated poverty for the poorest
populations. Environmental ministries and their programs, often one of the lowest priorities in
many developing countries, suffer significantly from budget shortfalls, leading to obvious and
severe environmental consequences.
Trading Relationships. An increase in international trade also has significant impacts on
biodiversity loss at the case study sites. Commonly, a focus on exports stimulates an expansion
of agricultural production, which threatens natural areas. Increased exploitation of natural
resource products for export may lead to over-harvesting of certain species. With a few
exceptional cases, the environmental costs of production or extraction are simply not valued in
the marketplace. In other more isolated regions, trade expansion has the potential to facilitate
both legal and illegal exports, as poor populations perceive new opportunities to generate
income.
Political relationships among countries also shape resource use and trading patterns. In some
case studies, continued relations between developing countries and their former colonial powers
still dominate national decision-making and trading relationships. Corporations that maintain
their interests in former colonies also may continue to wield significant power and influence over
national governments and production and trade decisions.
Policy Responses
The case studies provide ample evidence that public policies, including those designed to address
the problems created by the domestic and international pressures just described, can exacerbate
biodiversity loss. These public policy decisions can be explained by a variety of factors, ranging
7
from domestic and international political economy factors and poor environmental management
regimes to the accepted pattern for development. The case studies show that despite local
differences, the main ways that public policies drive biodiversity loss are through:




policies promoting resource use at unsustainable levels;
inadequate or ineffective environmental policies and laws that lead to poor domestic
environmental management and protection;
few or inadequate efforts to assess or mitigate the harmful effects that the implementation of
public policies may have on the environment; and
policy decisions that remove local incentives for sustainable resource use.
Policy Failures. A development approach heavily reliant on resource use and economic growth
encourages governments to establish public policies that generate unintended but widespread
environmental consequences. These policies are designed to achieve important social, economic,
or political goals, but they fail to address the environmental pressures created by either growing
domestic and international pressures or the proposed solutions to those pressures. While every
case study implicated perverse public policies in the loss of biodiversity, these policy failures
come about in a variety of ways.
The allocation of land or other natural resources for subsistence or commercial exploitation often
serves as the primary pressure valve for addressing domestic pressures of population growth and
poverty. In many cases, an over-dependence on these resources coupled with a lack of
consideration for environmental impacts leads to unsustainable use. Given the persistent
inequalities of political and economic power common to the case studies, the resources allocated
to relieve poverty are generally marginal resources of little value to powerful interest groups.
These marginal resources are often found in fragile environments and areas where biodiversity
has been relatively undisturbed.
The same pressure valve is also used to address external pressures of macroeconomic
imbalances, expanding foreign trade and investment, and the need for foreign exchange to
service debt and finance development. In response to these international pressures, governments
have increasingly looked to increasing exports to generate foreign exchange and promote
development. Pressures created by liberalization programs often lead to more private-sector
access to resources. Producers respond rapidly to new market signals and access to resources.
Without appropriate environmental safeguards in place, as is often the case in countries subject
to adjustment-induced budget cuts, rapid and significant overexploitation of resources for shortterm profits ensues.
Domestic Political Economy Factors. Domestic political and economic power factors have also
driven many inappropriate decisions about resource use and allocation at the case study sites.
Often, politically or economically powerful individuals or interest groups are able to influence
government policies and programs to address their particular interests, while ignoring both shortand long-term environmental costs. Strong political ideologies that enjoy the backing of
powerful political groups, including a focus on centralized decision-making in socialist
governments or an ideological push for market liberalization, may also guide decisions about
domestic resource use.
8
International Political Economy Factors. International institutions have also promoted resource
use as a response to external pressures, without adequate consideration of environmental
concerns. Institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank push for
liberalization and the promotion of export production as part of their lending packages. Most
commonly, this means an increase in agricultural production or commercial natural resource
exploitation with consequent environmental degradation as described above. These same
lending and reform packages also emphasize reduced government spending and intervention in
markets, making it increasingly difficult to enforce environmental standards and protection.
International trade agreements, most notably the World Trade Organization, also promote
liberalization of trade and increased production without explicit recognition of the environmental
consequences of these changes.
Governments may also adopt public policies affecting resource use to express certain political or
economic ideologies within the international arena. These ideologies, including a drive for
sovereignty and freedom from external pressures, often take precedence over goals of sustainable
use. In some countries, this is manifested by a need to occupy isolated regions, which is
translated into migration into vast, sparsely populated areas. In other countries this is manifested
by increased agricultural or industrial production, without proper consideration of long-term
environmental impacts.
Poor Environmental Management. Biodiversity loss is also fostered by a failure of governments
to protect the environment. In some cases, this failure is attributed to a general lack of interest in
protecting biodiversity, either on the part of the government, influential members of society, or
influential international financial institutions. In other cases, this failure is more closely
associated with weak enforcement of existing policies and laws to protect the environment.
While poor enforcement may be due to a lack of political commitment, it is frequently associated
with a lack of managerial capacity, and/or financial resources. In cases where enforcement does
occur, the immediate rewards from resource use are often significantly greater than the light
sentences given to violators of resource-protection laws.
Conflicts among the goals of various government agencies may create positive incentives for
land-clearing and other forms of resource exploitation. These conflicts may result from a lack of
political will, poor institutional coordination and communication, and/or the low priority given to
environmental ministries and their programs. Most often, a failure to protect the environment is
associated with the precedence of other social, economic, or political goals over environmental
goals.
Accepted Pattern of Development. The root causes of biodiversity loss identified in the case
studies stem from an approach to development focused on economic growth and the control of
resources. Specific regional, national, and local conditions determine exactly how this pattern of
development is manifested at individual sites. However, all the case studies show that the
accepted pattern of development generally leads to environmental degradation and consequent
biodiversity loss. The case studies show that common elements of this consumption-driven
pattern of development leading to biodiversity loss include:
9





a focus on economic growth often evidenced by a drive to increase production and natural
resource exploitation,
widespread failure by decision makers to account for environmental impacts,
a focus on large-scale development projects with significant environmental impacts,
centralized decision-making and removal of local control over resources leading to a
breakdown of traditional community-based systems and declining incentives for long-term
conservation, and
a focus on new and often inappropriate technologies and a failure to recognize the
importance of traditional systems of resource management, resulting in environmental
degradation.
Over-Determination of Biodiversity Loss
The Root Causes analysis provides a new and more holistic understanding of what was already
suspected -- that biodiversity loss is driven by a complex interplay of various forces operating at
different scales. While any of the individual factors alone are sufficient to cause biodiversity
loss, in reality, multiple factors are acting simultaneously to drive such loss.
Clearly, this “over-determination” of biodiversity loss at sites across the globe undoubtedly
demonstrates that successful conservation will require a more comprehensive approach. The
approach must be based on new thinking to find ways to address the social, economic, and
political pressures facing developing countries without relying on ever-increasing resource
exploitation. Conservation of biodiversity will depend not only on addressing local, immediate
pressures on habitats and species, but also on addressing the wide range of regional, national, and
international pressures that shape local resource use. Recommendations arising from the Root
Causes of Biodiversity Loss Project provide a basic framework for this new approach.
Recommendations for Addressing the Root Causes of Biodiversity Loss
The simple truth is that the race to save biodiversity is being lost because the factors contributing
to its degradation are more complex and powerful than those forces working to protect it. The
case studies show that while biodiversity loss is expressed in unique local terms and processes, a
set of systemic forces is converging to drive biodiversity loss around the world. Because of this
duality, successful action against biodiversity loss has to take place on both levels.
At the local level, innovative activities that address immediate threats to biodiversity loss should
be expanded. These local level activities, however, can only succeed in the long run if
appropriate policies and incentive systems operating at national and international levels are put
in place to support biodiversity conservation. In order to implement such a comprehensive
approach for halting biodiversity loss, WWF proposes six main recommendations. The first
three are designed to deal with addressing the root causes of biodiversity loss at the local level,
while the next three focus on the systemic level.
10
Recommendation 1: Activities that seek to ensure the immediate and effective conservation of
biodiversity and that focus on the local dynamic causing that loss need to be identified and
supported.
Biodiversity loss is a significant and critical global problem, and a wide variety of tools
must be deployed to address such a problem. The case studies show that a variety of
activities to support conservation on the local level must be aggressively identified and
supported by national governments, international institutions, and civil society.
Activities include the identification, establishment, and enforcement of protected areas;
projects that focus on providing economic alternatives to unsustainable resource use; and
the identification and development of markets that promote efficient and equitable use of
environmental products.
Recommendation 2: The role of civil society in promoting, implementing, and monitoring the
protection of biodiversity needs to be actively supported by national governments and
international institutions.
Civil society plays an important role in the conservation of biological diversity. This role
is becoming increasingly important in recent years, as the effects of globalization spread
and governments increasingly move away from their traditional role of regulating the use
of natural resources. New financial resources must be made available to support civil
society in this expanded role. To stem the loss of biodiversity, civil society must conduct
more research to understand the root causes of biodiversity loss; implement more on-theground activities that address the root causes; embark on new advocacy campaigns to
support the international and national level processes necessary to integrate the views of a
larger number of stakeholders in national decision-making and to advocate for those
whose voice is not present but is critical to the success of processes; and ensure that
actors remain accountable to the environmental commitments they have made.
Recommendation 3: The private sector can, and should, take a more active role in the
development of standards, management practices, and business models that seek to integrate
sustainability into their activities. They should also use the political power that they
increasingly wield to promote the development and implementation at the national and
international levels of incentives to sustainable development and the conservation of
biodiversity.
A growing segment of the private sector is emerging as a positive force in the pursuit of
sustainable development and the conservation of biodiversity. Companies are
increasingly acknowledging the long-term benefits of sustainability. A growing number
of educated and concerned consumers are rewarding these companies for
environmentally and socially sustainable practices. These companies must take a
leadership role in creating new models for how the private sector can profit from
environmental sustainability. They can do so by actively promoting the adoption of
standards for environmental management and reporting, the development of corporate
responsibility strategies, and the sharing of best practices. They can also use the
considerable economic and political influence they enjoy to support the creation of
11
incentives for sustainable development and the conservation of biodiversity at national
and international levels.
Recommendation 4: National governments, which bear the major responsibility for addressing
the root causes of biodiversity loss, need to recognize that a deep-seated conflict exists between
the pursuit of economic development as it is currently undertaken and the preservation of
biodiversity. They need to create new national processes to define and resolve these conflicts.
The simple fact is that governments are called upon to make difficult decisions and
tradeoffs. Unfortunately, underlying these tradeoffs is a deep-seated conflict between
economic growth and environmental protection. For countries serious about stemming
the loss of biodiversity, a national process involving all affected parties from local
communities to civil society to corporate interests should be put in place to explore these
tradeoffs. An essential input into these processes is analytical work to assess real costs
and benefits of alternative courses of action. The international community must show its
support of these processes through the provision of technical and financial support.
Recommendation 5: The international community has to ensure that the context in which
countries are being asked to make tough choices about their development is properly supportive
of the objectives of sustainable development. International institutions and regimes need to
create incentives and remove disincentives for sustainable development and the conservation of
biodiversity.
A set of international incentives for sustainable development and the conservation of
biodiversity exists in the form of international laws and legal regimes. These laws,
embodied in a variety of international and regional conventions, set rules for the use of
biological resources and for how the benefits of that use are to be distributed. A second
set of incentives is financial in nature, including support from the GEF, multi-lateral and
bilateral donors, private institutions, and NGOs. More recently, a new set of incentives
has arisen in the form of environmentally sound international standards for the use of
certain natural resource commodities that have been developed by civil society.
Unfortunately, these positive incentives are countered by a much larger set of
disincentives working against sustainable development and conservation of biodiversity.
First, the international economy is being pushed to adopt global standards that are
increasingly defined by private corporations. Nation-states are being asked to give up
their role as regulators over resources and economic sectors. Trade agreements, designed
to reduce barriers between countries, are increasingly used to prevent governments from
regulating the importation of certain goods or types of investment that are
environmentally destructive. Enormous financial flows well beyond that of
environmental spending have been shown to have detrimental effects on a nation's natural
resource base. Other types of lending or grant-making programs that support traditional
forms of economic growth far supersede spending on the environment or conservation of
biodiversity by orders of magnitude.
12
If the international community is truly committed to stemming the loss of biodiversity,
then much more work needs to be done to understand the full environmental impact of
the international incentive system and to bring this system into balance with sustainable
development objectives.
Recommendation 6: Institutions and individuals concerned with the loss of biodiversity need to
develop and integrate new approaches (such as the MPO's Analytical Approach described in
Chapter 2) to understand the root causes of biodiversity loss.
Governments, donors, multi-lateral institutions, and NGOs must all begin to incorporate
approaches for understanding and addressing the root causes of biodiversity loss more
systematically into their programs. For international lending and grant-making
institutions, the first step will involve adopting specific operational policies and
guidelines for their programs. More meaningful research and dialogue on these issues is
necessary between donors and their developing country partners. NGOs will have a key
role to play in facilitating this dialogue. NGO participation is also critical for developing
and sharing approaches that better integrate biological and socioeconomic analyses.
Adopting a more comprehensive approach for understanding biodiversity loss will ensure
that new strategies and activities that aim to address the loss of biodiversity are more
effective.
FINAL THOUGHTS
The recommendations proposed here reflect the emerging international consensus regarding how
to address biodiversity loss. Obviously, taking action along these lines will be a long and
difficult process. The conflicts and contradictions that drive biodiversity loss represent some of
the most intractable problems societies face. They involve issues as complex as how to address
poverty and inequity, or how to balance current consumption patterns and the needs of future
generations. They are not easy problems, and they do not have easy solutions. Governments
will be forced to make difficult choices and tradeoffs. Addressing these problems will require
significant political will and the active participation of all the major players. Yet, only by
engaging in such a timely and important global enterprise will we make headway toward
ensuring an abundance of natural resources and the existence of biodiversity.
13