Environmental Management: Principles and practice

Biodiversity conservation
With respect to biodiversity conservation the responsibility of present-day
environmental management is relatively clear. Living species are being lost at an
alarming rate; once extinct, they are not recoverable; their value for ensuring
environmental stability and providing benefits for humans is largely undetermined.
Even excluding philosophical and moral beliefs that causing extinction is wrong, it
makes sense to conserve biodiversity to keep open future options. Without the bark
of one tree (for quinine) much of the settlement, trade and progress of the last few
centuries would have been impossible; without access to one yam species in the
1950s modern oral contraceptives would probably not have been discovered and
synthesized. E.O. Wilson (1992:335) suggested that, regardless of a person’s beliefs,
‘the ethical imperative should therefore be, first of all, prudence. We should judge
every scrap of biodiversity as priceless’ (my italics).
In biodiversity protection and, I would argue, most other aspects of
environmental management, prudence (the precautionary principle) should underpin
all decisions. Biodiversity conservation is not just about establishing and managing
reserves, gene banks, zoological and botanical collections—it requires environmental
management to ensure that there are no transboundary or global threats that endanger
such collections, and to try to ensure that there are safeguards (duplicated collections
well apart, secure as possible sites, etc.).
Biotechnology—double-edged sword?
Biotechnology is of great value for developing new crops, pest control methods
which reduce reliance on chemical pesticides, bioremediation of pollution, biological
nitrogen fixation, etc. (Hector, 1996). The value of biotechnology to improve food
and commodity production, to offer alternatives to agrochemicals (fertilizers,
pesticides and herbicides), aid healthcare and treat pollution must be weighed against
risks. The main risks are the escape of genetically engineered organisms carrying
recombinant DNA material and causing a serious environmental problem, or the use

---

THE WAY AHEAD
265
of biotechnology for commodity substitution. There have already been cases of
substitution which have had severe economic and social impacts, for example: the
adoption of high fructose corn syrup by the food and drinks industries in developed
countries hit some developing country sugar producers badly (between 1983 and
1984 America cut sugar imports by US$130 million). When export markets collapse,
farmers may be forced to produce other crops or to abandon land, both of which can
cause serious environmental degradation. Biotechnology might make it possible for
large companies to produce things like cocoa butter substitutes or naturally de-
caffeinated coffee, or even alternatives to palm-oil, which would severely upset
countries that rely on these exports.
There is little disagreement that biodiversity is a world resource that all should
benefit from. But in practice, seed companies, biotechnology companies and other
commercial interests seek to profit and recoup their research and development costs
if they develop genetic material. The call for patent rights by developers of biodiversity
is growing as biotechnology develops (global free trade allows holders of rights to
control huge markets for their products). In response, developing countries, indigenous
peoples and NGOs have started to campaign for free access to ‘raw material’ for
biotechnology (i.e access to biodiversity), and some reward for and control over
products developed from their indigenous biodiversity. Biodiversity conservation
and development is thus a sensitive issue. Some governments have accused MNCs
and TNCs and developed countries of ‘bio-piracy’, taking genetic material from
poor nations, producing something from it with biotechnology, and then selling it
back at huge profit (Fowler and Mooney, 1990; Shiva, 1993).