Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Biosphere - WBGU

138 E Diversity of landscapes and ecosystems
opportunities for the conservation of biological
diversity.
An important requirement for this is the development
and testing of a methodology for assessing and
evaluating the ecological services provided by protected
areas in particular and the landscape in general,
and for incorporating the outcomes into societal
decision-making processes (Section H 4). The existing
biosphere reserves are especially suitable for
pilot projects of this kind because they comprise not
only protected areas (core zones), but also buffer
zones and development zones (Box E 3.9-1).
However, the subject of financing cannot be
treated in isolation for protected areas alone; it must
be viewed in conjunction with biosphere policy as a
whole – especially North-South policy. Hence this
area (incentive instruments, funds, international
cooperation) will be dealt with later in a section of its
own (Section I 3.5.3.2).
E 3.3.3
‘Conservation through use’ as a strategy
E 3.3.3.1
The problem: the (alleged) conflict between
conservation and use
The (alleged) conflict between conservation and use
has already been referred to in the pre-structuring
Section E 3.3.1 ‘Types of landscape use’. In this
respect it has been argued that in many cases there is
not much hope of success in attaining the objective of
environmental policy if every use of biosphere services
is prohibited. Much rather, a ‘system of differentiated
intensities of use’ gradated according to the
relevant landscape-use type should be developed.
The advantages of such a ‘system of differentiated
intensities of use’ become clear upon consideration
of empirical experience with respect to the effectiveness
of nature conservation areas in which all use of
biological resources is prohibited (Lewis, 1996). Protected
areas, especially in developing countries, usually
provide only low yields for the local population.
At the same time, enormous costs for the protection
of the biosphere are imposed on local population
groups, mostly in the form of opportunity costs arising
from non-use (Section E 3.3.2; McNeely, 1988).
This imbalance of costs and benefits among the local
population leads to serious problems for protected
areas because a conflict arises between the objective
of nature conservation and the promotion of economic
development (Miller et al, 1995). Environmental
policy is therefore well advised to limit the
prohibition of all use, especially in countries with
weak local implementation potential, to rare cases
where the conservation of ecosystem components is
really not possible in any other way.
Measures to place a value on biosphere services
create scope for using ecosystems or their elements
and functions for earning individual incomes. This
approach corrects the imbalance between costs and
benefits among the local population in favour of the
benefits.This fulfils an important requirement, ie that
protection goals can also be realized effectively and
adhered to locally. In contrast to management of
landscape-use type ‘E’ (‘economic use’), intensive
land use is not in the foreground (Section E 3.3.4),
the strategy with land-use type ‘M’ (‘mean intensity
of use’), which is in the foreground here, is to implement
the protection concept and aim for extensive
land use by permitting certain types of use.
E 3.3.3.2
Fundamental idea: ‘Conservation through use’
The fundamental idea of the ‘conservation through
use’ instrument is to give private individuals – especially
the local population but, under certain circumstances
also companies, NGOs, etc – the possibility to
use the ecosystem, which is to be protected in principle,
for the purposes of earning individual incomes.
Excessive use, that endangers protection, is to be prevented
by relevant sanctions.
One example of the ‘conservation through use’
concept is the protection of crocodiles in Australia by
permitting trade, ie sales of crocodile eggs or young
crocodiles to breeding farms. This financial gain, for
example benefitting farmers whose cattle are otherwise
threatened by the crocodiles, guarantees tolerance
and protection of the crocodiles (Heidinger,
1998).
Such an example of ‘valuation of nature’ – in the
example cited it is valuing a species of animal – gives
private actors an incentive to use the ecosystem, but
not to such an extent that it is overused and thus loses
its protective properties. With regard to their own
scope for earning income, private actors should have
an incentive to conserve the ecological efficiency of
the ecosystem in the future – as a basis for earning
private incomes in the long term. This can also be
seen in the example of the protection of the crocodiles.
Here there was a change in consciousness to the
effect that when the native Aborigines kill the crocodile
in a legalized process, they take care to spare the
egg-laying females (Heidinger, 1998).
In principle, a distinction can be made between
two different methods for placing a value on biosphere
services: