Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Biosphere - WBGU

304 I Global biosphere policy
high degree of diversity, a range of extreme abiotic
and biotic conditions and an unbroken tradition in
the indigenous population, the option value of these
natural resources is particularly high. In order to preserve
the option value of hitherto unknown species
and forms of use for future generations, areas of natural
or semi-natural ecosystems must be conserved
and certain human uses such as commercial extraction
of biomass, hunting and fishing precluded. The
regions must be differentiated in terms of the numbers
of endangered species. It is too risky to provide
just one protected area per species or ecosystem, so
several representative areas need to be protected in
order to ensure the long-term protection goal. And
the protected areas need to be cross-linked into the
landscape (Section E 3.3.2). As far as we know some
ecosystems and species react extremely sensitively to
human influence, which means that a certain portion
of the biosphere needs total protection against human
influences. Enforcing this sort of protection that is
based on values that cannot be translated directly
into monetary terms and that cannot be developed
until some point in the future in the face of concrete,
conflicting interests is a particular challenge.
The Council is aware that a scientifically grounded
‘water-tight’ derivation of a guard rail in the form of
protected area targets is not possible at the present
time. If, however, here the figure of 10–20 per cent of
terrestrial area is given, then this is a broad estimate
that is mainly founded on expert intuition (Section E
3.3.2). This figure will however vary greatly from
region to region, depending on the natural status and
features. Since such areas are generally also interesting
for other reasons (eg protection of the existence
value) there are synergies with the guard rail for the
preservation of the global natural heritage (Section I
1.4).And this percentage already includes the preservation
of populations and species for reasons of existence
value (Section I 1.4) and option value.
I 1.4
Fourth biological imperative: preserve the global
natural heritage
The preamble to the Convention on Biological
Diversity affirms that biological diversity is a ‘common
concern of humankind’. Similar formulations in
other agreements on the biosphere, AGENDA 21 and
the programmes of international institutions permit
the conclusion that in the international community a
global consensus in favour of preserving the natural
heritage of creation has been established. According
to this consensus it is unacceptable to allow large
losses of worldwide biological diversity. The reasons
for this are varied and they have been explained at
various points in this report: they range from concrete
‘survival arguments’ (without the maintenance
of agrobiodiversity the world’s food is in danger, Sections
D 3.4 and I 1.2) to more normative rationales
(existential and symbolic value; preservation of a natural
heritage site can be rationalized in a similar way
as monuments are preserved as world cultural heritage
sites; Chapter H). And, ultimately, this guard
rail also has consequences in the form of claims to
territory, ie nature conservation becoming in certain
areas the primary form of ‘land use’ (Section E 3.3.2).
Landscapes and ecosystems
Here, first of all we should name the parts of the biosphere
that according to the UNESCO convention
and other territory-specific conventions make up the
natural heritage of humankind and therefore enjoy
special protection (Section I 3). Just as the loss of cultural
treasures that have been acquired over the
course of the cultural evolution of humankind is
unacceptable for the global community, a global consensus
has been established on the basis of the high
existential and symbolic value also to preserve the
natural treasures of biological evolution or geologically
valuable formations. These include places such
as Lake Baikal, Yellowstone National Park or the
Serengeti.These ‘jewels of the biosphere’ are in many
instances already under national and international
protection (eg through the World Heritage Convention,
Section I 3.3.1) but in many cases require additional
support, particularly if the capacity of the
respective country – often a developing country – is
strained.
These ‘jewels’ that are already protected should in
a global approach be supplemented by representative
sections of all of the major ecosystems of the
Earth. The demand that no ecosystem type may be
allowed to disappear is much easier to implement
than is that same demand applied to species, even
though there have already been irrevocable losses in
the area of ecosystems. To this end it will require a
network of protected areas that includes representative
examples of all natural ecosystem types (Section
E 3.3.2). Topological aspects must be taken into particular
consideration when selecting areas (habitat
connectivity, corridors, stepping stone ecosystems).
From these thoughts recommendations for landscapes
and ecosystems can be derived:
• They must incorporate areas already under protection.
• Following a gap analysis in the current representative
nature of the protected area system they
would have to include the missing areas. This
analysis is time-consuming and cannot be carried
out by the Council at this point. This approach
could be calculated on the basis of the various