 |
SUMMARY
FOR POLICY-MAKERS |
|
Overcoming
the crisis of the biosphere
We
are currently experiencing a major crisis of the biosphere: the Sixth
Extinction of genetic and species diversity. Every day natures genetic
and physiological blueprints are lost without us being able to explore
the opportunities that they present to us. The cause of this Sixth Extinction
is humankind who has transformed, isolated, fragmented or destroyed
the worlds landscapes and ecosystems. This process is so far-reaching
that the general ability of the living world to rebuild a complex interrelation
of species after severe disruptions is at risk for millions of years
to come. The vast majority of scientists believe that there are only
a few decades left to prevent this fateful development with environmental
policy measures.
The German Advisory Council on Global
Change (WBGU) believes that the crux of all strategies of this kind
is to place at least 10% of the earths land area under protection. As
a result the planetary biosphere services (such as regulating the worlds
climate) could be preserved, as could the biodiversity hotspots where
the natural capital of genetic information is concentrated.
In Europe a demand of this kind has long been a statutory requirement,
but in Germany it has not yet been implemented. Scientific analyses
show that an appropriate global protected area system can be financed
by well-considered cuts in the worldwide system of agricultural subsidies.
The most important instrument of biosphere
policy under international law is the Biodiversity Convention. In the
field of biosafety the Councils recommendations became reality in the
form of the Cartagena Protocol shortly after this Report went to press.
Other important steps have not yet been taken: the German Federal Government
should advocate that the United Nations Rio + 10 Declaration contain
firm calls for these steps to be implemented.
Urgent need to act
The
German Advisory Council on Global Change focuses its 1999 Annual Report,
entitled "World in transition: conservation and sustainable use
of the biosphere", on an interdisciplinary analysis of the biosphere
crisis. A number of concrete recommendations for political decision-makers
are derived on this basis.
The measures recommended can only hope
to be successful, however, if they are fitted into the logic of a global
framework on "biosphere governance". The community of nations
will have to decide whether, in what way and in what places it wishes
to preserve, maintain or actively design. It will be many years before
biosphere governance will step out of the shadow of the profound ignorance
that surrounds the biosphere. For instance, although prognostic capacity
was very quickly acquired in relation to climate issues, the complexity
of life on this planet has only really begun to be sounded by the academic
world. In addition to formulating recommendations, therefore, there
is a need to outline a research strategy for the biosphere.
Biosphere and biological diversity are
therefore issues that in future must be placed much higher on the international
and national political agenda - both in terms of policy and research.
Imperatives for conserving and shaping the biosphere
In
this report the Council formulated five "biological imperatives"
to serve as orientation points for policy and with which the values
of the biosphere are conserved and used sustainably for this and future
generations. The order of the imperatives does not imply any ranking:
the Council treats all of these maxims for action equally alongside
each other.
First
biological imperative: preserve the integrity of bioregions
The Council recommends pursuing a dual
strategy here. First of all, it makes sense to impose usage restrictions
within regions on zones that are intended to assume a regional regulatory
function or where ecosystem services are most important. Added to that
are the protected areas of trans-regional or even global importance.
Secondly, however, in those zones that are suited to extensive or intensive
use in agricultural or forestry terms, sustainability limits should
not be exceeded. The Council has drawn up practical "guidelines"
for these zones to ensure that sustainability is maintained.
Second
biological imperative: secure existing biological resources
The biological resources that are required
to ensure the continuous adjustment and further development of crops
and livestock must not be jeopardised. These include the wild species
related to the cultivated plants. Particular attention should be paid
to zones in which valuable plant genetic resources occur in a considerable
concentration ("centres of genetic diversity").
Third
biological imperative: maintain biopotential for the future
The biosphere contains many substances and
blueprints that are as yet unknown, we must secure these options
for the possibility of future use. There are particularly great
opportunities in areas in which biological diversity is concentrated
in natural ecosystems (e.g. tropical forests, coral reefs) and therefore
a relatively large number of interesting "solutions" of a
biochemical or structural nature are to be found. These hotspots of
biological diversity are particularly worthy of protection.
Fourth
biological imperative: preserve the global natural heritage
There is a global consensus across the international
community in favour of preserving the natural heritage. There are a
variety of reasons for this: they range from the concrete "survival
arguments" through to more normative rationales. What is required
in order to meet this goal is a network of protected areas that
includes representative examples of every natural ecosystem on the earth.
Of course, it is not just certain ecosystems or landscapes that belong
to the natural heritage, but also the species that live in them. Measures
to protect species are therefore necessary if such species would
otherwise have no other means of survival.
Fifth
biological imperative: preserve the regulatory functions of the biosphere
The major biogeochemical cycles within
the Earths system are currently subject to extensive influence from
humankind. This influence can already be felt at the coupling between
the biosphere and the climatic system, since climate change has a negative
impact on the biosphere and vice versa. Consequently, the global "guard
rail" that the Council has already developed for climate protection
may be transferred and applied to the biosphere. For the global regulatory
mechanisms there are already geographically explicit c ritical focal
points that require special protective measures. Minimum demands
may thus be formulated with regard to the area of natural ecosystems
that needs to be protected.
Eliminating
knowledge gaps
Perhaps
the most important aspect under the heading "biosphere" is
the dramatic lack of knowledge. Only a small proportion of species has
been described so far and we do not even know the total number of species
worldwide. Explaining scientifically the ecological functions performed
by just one species or ecosystem is complicated and difficult enough:
the task of providing such an explanation for all species is colossal.
Therefore, it is essential to set clear priorities for biosphere research.
Currently, one important foundation of
knowledge is at risk: even in Germany the ability to identify animal
and plant species is limited to an ever-diminishing group of experts.
Knowledge about regional biological diversity may also be about to be
lost. A research strategy that hopes to address biodiversity cannot
however limit itself to research in biosciences in the narrower sense
- such as taxonomy or ecosystem research. It must integrate the sustainable
use of biological diversity (research in agriculture, forestry and fisheries).
This calls for an interdisciplinary approach that also incorporates,
for example, economics, ethics, psychology and sociology.
The crisis of our biosphere demands that
researchers adopt a problem-oriented, strategic approach. The starting
point should be the following core questions: Which of the goods and
services that the biosphere provides to humankind and to society are
in jeopardy? What area of natural ecosystems and how much biological
diversity is required at the local, regional and global levels, to ensure
the supply of these goods and services for the long term?
In its 1999 Annual Report, the Council
outlines a strategic framework for biosphere research that can serve
as a basis for an interconnected European, and indeed, international
research programme. The parameters are set by three demands: (1) Priority
must be given to research into the knowledge base necessary for implementing
the biological imperatives and the "guard rails"; (2) furthermore,
there must be research into specific methods and instruments; (3) in
light of the knowledge and theory gaps, extensive basic research is
necessary that must contain both bio-ecological and socio-economic elements.
The core policy recommendations from the German Advisory Council on
Global Change
A "guard
rail" for the biosphere: protect 10-20% of land area
Current knowledge does not allow for the exact
or scientifically founded "guardrail" for biosphere protection
in the sense of an actual proportion of the overall surface area that
should be protected. Calculations based on estimates with regard to
the preservation of different components and aspects of the biosphere
that apply various assessments of its function and value, though inadequate
in many methodological respects, do provide important reference points.
The various approaches arrive at similar numbers: a representative selection
of 10-20% of the earths land area should have "conservation use"
as its priority land use form. The Council therefore considers it imperative
to consolidate and develop further the existing worldwide system of
protected areas. New protected areas should be designated in line with
ecological criteria; the existing protected areas should be brought
into that context and developed into a system of protected areas. The
status of implementation of the Habitat Directive and its foreseen EU-wide
network, Natura 2000, has to be considered very unsatisfactory in Germany.
The Advisory Council once again calls for implementation to be advanced
quickly and for the overdue amendment of the Federal Nature Conservation
Act to be completed.
An
effective worldwide system of protected areas is affordable
A worldwide system of protected areas in the
order of magnitude called for by the Council would trigger additional
costs of less than DM 40 billion per year, according to initial rough
estimates. It should not be impossible for the international community
to close that funding gap. Funds could be released by reducing environmentally
damaging subsidies, for example agricultural subsidies. Nevertheless,
funding from the public purse alone will not suffice to provide adequate
global protection for biological diversity. Therefore, political support
should be given to efforts to establish "biosphere funds",
run in the private sector with certain tax relief facilities. The Council
furthermore recommends making the Foundation system in Germany more
attractive in tax terms, for example by means of favourable treatment
for environmental foundations.
More
resolute implementation of the Biodiversity Convention
The Biodiversity Convention is the central
set of international rules on biodiversity to enjoy broad-based acceptance.
Its Parties committed themselves to conservation of biological
diversity, sustainable use of its component parts and fair
and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the use of
genetic resources. There should be much more energetic pursuit of the
implementation of these goals in Germany. For instance, they should
be reflected to a greater extent in classic approaches to nature and
species conservation and expand these by adding concepts for sustainable
use of the biosphere. This would mean primarily incorporating agriculture,
forestry and fisheries, but also the fields of biotechnology, research
promotion, economic and fiscal policies, and development cooperation.
The Council therefore considers it appropriate for Germany to develop
a national biodiversity strategy. Close cooperation among the Federal
Ministries is an important precondition for achieving such a strategy;
the Council therefore recommends that an "Inter-Ministerial Working
Group on Biodiversity Policy" be convened.
Establish
an "Intergovernmental Panel on Biological Diversity"
International biosphere policy currently lacks
sufficient scientific advice. The UNs 1995 Global Biodiversity Assessment
did provide an initial scientific overview, but this work was not consistently
continued. The Council recommends as a first step investigating the
extent to which these tasks could be achieved by closer networking among
existing bodies. One can assume, however, that on that basis a scientific
body of experts on biodiversity will be necessary in the form, for example,
of an Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity (IPBD). Such a body would
bring together all of the leading scientists as was the case around
the climate issue. The contributions of an IPBD would lend the biodiversity
debate greater objectivity. The world of science, too, would benefit
in terms of improved coordination and connectivity. The Council recommends
building on the experiences of the Global Biodiversity Assessment and
the IPCC in establishing the IPBD in order to avoid potential structural
weaknesses from the outset.
Strengthen
UNESCOs MAB programme
The UNESCO programme "Man and the Biosphere"
(MAB) offers good opportunities for regional implementation of the Biodiversity
Convention. In particular, the Council welcomes the trend towards larger,
better connected and trans-national biosphere reserves. However, the
MAB programme could be used more effectively as an instrument of international
cooperation on biosphere protection. Since there is no financing mechanism
for this specific task, countries should be encouraged to make greater
use of the possibilities the GEF presents.
Achieve
legally-binding agreement on the protection of the forests
There is apparently no halt to the destruction
of forests. This is making success in climate policy more and more difficult
to achieve and is destroying valuable biological diversity. In order
to improve forest protection worldwide the Council has in the past proposed
the addition of a Forest Protocol to the Biodiversity Convention and
still holds this solution to be the most promising. More important,
however, than the external form of such an agreement would be its swift
adoption and legally-binding character. Private-sector activites are
also an important condition for the success of global forest protection.
The efforts to promote sustainable forestry through certification should
be supported as positive examples.
Maintain
the diversity of cultivated plants
Conservation of biological diversity is of
crucial importance to global food security. The Council therefore recommends
the promotion of agricultural production in the most diverse and multi-functional
form possible. Endangered cultivated plants should be placed in a Red
List because many traditional varieties are in danger of disappearing
forever. Worldwide a considerable portion of the e x-situ collections
of rare plant species ("genebanks") is considered endangered.
They must therefore be safeguarded, supplemented and made part of a
global network.
Seize
the opportunities of bioprospecting
The development of international standards
for access to genetic resources, their sustainable use and the fair
and equitable sharing of benefits should be pushed forward swiftly in
the context of the Biodiversity Convention. This provides opportunities
not only for the conservation of biological diversity, but also for
the industry using natural products. One important precondition for
cooperation with the countries of origin is, however, their appropriate
participation in the research results and support for national capacity
building. The rights of indigenous peoples must be guaranteed. For companies
using natural products, a focal point at the GTZ would make sense, both
for contacts and development of participatory strategies. The Council
would also like to propose examining together with the trade associations
the possibility of an internationally applicable labelling system for
sustainably produced pharmaceuticals.
Apply
"bioregional management"
In light of the links to climate and soil
protection, any successful international "biosphere policy"
would reach beyond the more traditional biodiversity policy. Since the
state alone cannot fulfill all that has to be done, as many players
and institutions as possible should be included. The primary aim must
be to see the protection of genetic, species and ecosystem diversity
as inseparable from its sustainable use. The Council recommends increased
application of the strategy of "bioregional management" for
land use according to the categories "Protection against use",
"Protection through use" and "Protection despite use"
and incorporating all of the major players. This concept is particularly
well suited to development cooperation; but additionally the extent
to which this approach could be reconciled more effectively with Germanys
planning system should be appraised.
Step
up bilateral and multilateral cooperation
One cannot emphasise enough the importance
of development cooperation in the context of biosphere protection since
it offers opportunities for the necessary crisis management in the field.
Germany has been a committed advocate for international biosphere protection
and is the third largest contributor to the Global Environment Facility
(GEF). In terms of debt-for-nature swaps, Germany is one of the leaders
in the field. The Council expressly welcomes the German Governments
initiative to waive the debts of the highly indebted poor countries
(Cologne Debt Initiative) as it gives the countries involved greater
scope in terms of conservation measures. However, a larger financial
commitment from the industrial countries is essential. The Council notes
with great concern that Germany is farther away than ever from reaching
the 0.7% goal.
