Optimism versus Pessimism on Biodiversity: Which is better for conservation? Which is more accurate?

​Optimism versus Pessimism on Biodiversity: Which is better for conservation? Which is more accurate?
 
The April 20th issue of Science has four articles that touch on the issue that I close with in my Wildlife Politics book: Should we be optimistic or pessimistic about the future of biodiversity? I my book, I discuss how traditional conservationists tend to be pessimistic based on their assessments of the continued loss of biodiversity despite attempts to conserve.  The group known as the “new conservationists” by way of contrast exude optimism.  Part of this debate concerns whether pessimism will harm the biodiversity movement because many humans will give up on any hope for conservation and thus weaken support for biodiversity efforts. This concern certainly does seem to me to be a legitimate concern. However, traditional conservationists can point to disasters (e.g., extinction of the passenger pigeon, the discovery of harm effects of DDT on golden eagles and other species) that have propelled conservation action and thus the argument can be made that too much optimism about the effects of humanity on biodiversity can undermine attempts to give top priority to conservation. A major difference of opinion exists between those who believe that technology can solve our environmental problems and those who doubt this. For example, new conservationists have pointed to efforts to rebuild destroyed coral reef systems that have achieved local successes but such efforts have to be weighed against major “bleaching” of reefs around the world including the Great Barrier Reef of Australia.
 
Balmford and Knowlton’s editorial in science reiterates the point that “hopelessness could itself emerge as a driver of extinction.”  They cite successes of conservation such as poisoning of rodents that “threaten seabird populations” in South Georgia and the slowing rate of “deforestation in Brazil” as examples of success.  In the same issue of science, Elise Amel et al. in an article titled ““Beyond the roots of human inaction: Fostering collective effort toward ecosystem conservation” discuss the psychological basis for why it is so difficult to get humans to give priority to biodiversity conservation. They state that the immediate and visible benefits of short-term actions that conflict with conservation (e.g., not spend extra money for energy-saving transportation and home devices) are “more compelling” than taking actions that have positive but “hard-to-detect” and long-term effects on ecosystems. They discuss how difficult it is to get humans to change behaviors but note there are some methods such as “community-based social marketing” that employs educational methods as well as social leaders to achieve change. In my book, I cite examples such as the famed Chinese basketball player, Yao Minh, making public commercials against the use of ivory.  They states that the lack of sense of efficacy—that their doubt that individual actions will have an impact—as a major obstacle. 
 
Ruth DeFries and Harini Nagendra in an article titled “Ecosystem management as a wicked problem” view biodiversity conservation efforts as examples of difficult issues that are “intractable” with no “clear-cut solutions.”  They cite some attempts to solutions such as Eleanor Ostrom’s proposed methods for management of “common pool resources” but these efforts (as I describe in my book too) have been most successful in small areas where local actors have the information and ability to punish those who violate the agreed-upon norms.  They discuss other methods such as community-based natural resources management which attempts to solve conflicts between biodiversity conservation and the needs of poor villagers who live near wildlife that threaten their livestock and sometimes lives. These efforts have had mixed results as I describe in detail in my book.  Another positive approach is to solve “multi-jurisdiction problems” where the problem overlaps existing political boundaries by the formation of institutions to deal with such issues and they cite some examples of successes such as the Yellowstone to Yukon corridor concept.  Solutions that cross governmental boundaries or depend on international organizations are important but they are fragile and dependent on individual governments taking action. In my book, I describe in detail how CITES rules are dependent mostly on individual countries taking action and they have often only done so when subjected to threats of trade retaliation by powerful countries such as the U.S. The CITES organization itself has very limited resources for taking action.
Another proposed solution is to use the power of market incentives to motivate those who “own” the area that contains threatened species by having those interested in preserving them compensate these owners—the payments for ecosystem services (PES) approach. As I describe in my book, these PES attempts are still in their early stages. I provide some case studies that show that success depends on regular monitoring of data about adherence of the “owners” to contractual terms in order to determine if they have met their obligations and this can be a complex endeavor—it is not an “invisible hand” which is the major advantage of “pure” market approaches.   
Finally, they note that wicked problem complexity forces an “adaptive management” approach in which solutions are attempted and then monitoring takes place with adjustments made based on how well, if at all, the “solutions” worked.  Adaptive management thus is a process—not a theory and it depends entirely on consistent implementation and monitoring if it is to be successful.  In my book, I describe how habitat conservation plans (HCPs) have become the main vehicle for conservation under the Endangered Species Act and while HCPs appear to be a promising way of achieving compromise among often bitterly opposed stakeholders, they depend on implementation and the long-term results of these HCPs have not very visible or proven. As I note in the book, once a long and difficult compromise HCP has been reached, almost no one including the government (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) is anxious to raise doubts and reopen the difficult negotiation process. The only exceptions are groups like the Center for Biodiversity but they have limited or no access nor resources to gather data that can raise questions about the HCP.
So, which is better, optimism or pessimism?  I do agree that humans including myself need to have some belief in the possibility that action can be successful so that some optimism is necessary or conservation is doomed. However, when I read the final article of the Science series on ecosystem conservation by Eileen Crist et al. titled “The interaction of human population, food production, and biodiversity protection,” I became pessimistic.  They describe how concern with human population growth has diminished because there is declining birth rates in the advanced industrialized countries plus the “Green Revolution” has eliminated concerns about meeting the needs of the growing population of humans.  They see the primary concern as being climate change, not human population growth.  They cite the growth in demands from China for soybeans and palm oil as likely to lead to continued conversion of forests and wildlife habitat to agricultural production to meet this demand.  They argue that despite a great deal of rhetoric about “sustainable agriculture” that continued growth in “global trade in foods” that “pesticide use” and “tropical deforestation” will continue to accumulate.  They admit that increasing human consumption of resources (apart from increases in human population) is a major factor too and cite as an example the conversion of U.S. “plains for food production” as having “wiped out 99% of the grasslands biome” along with its associated diversity of fora and fauna. Thus they emphasize that “land conversion for crop and animal agriculture” is the “chief driver of habitat loss.”  They cite family planning and growth in the education and rights of women as possible saving factors especially for Africa which otherwise will have a huge population growth but they note that funding for family planning has decreased recently. 
In short, in my Wildlife Politics book, I avoided making any predictions concerning biodiversity. Though I cited the continuing overall declines in biodiversity, there were promising trends such as setting aside large marine conservation areas that allow no fishing.  I also was hopeful about trends such as the ability to use new technology to track and prevent poaching.  However, perhaps due to the emergence of nationalist movements in the U.S. and other key western countries, I do not now see any strong forces countering threats to biodiversity and wildlife habitat.  I see the likelihood that population growth and development around protected areas in Africa and other continents will continue and that eventually these protected areas will shrink and become “zoo-like.”  I would like to be hopeful and I continue to take actions including contributions to conservation organizations and exhortations to my representatives to defend the Endangered Species Act and wildlife conservation general.  Perhaps the current period is temporary and hope will again spring forth?  I hope so.