Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist (62 page)

Overfishing of marine species is often done legally in international waters where there are no catch limits, or if there are limits, it may occur due to insufficient policing. While many fish species have been severely overfished, it is unlikely they could be driven to extinction, as it is virtually impossible to catch every last fish. Fish and other marine species are protected by the fact that they are underwater and much more difficult to detect than species that live on the land. Marine mammals are generally well protected, and even though Japan stubbornly insists on continuing to hunt whales in Antarctica, this will not lead to the extinction of any whale species.

One of the best examples of species loss due to clearing land for farming can be found in the Wheatbelt of Western Australia. The region around the city of Perth was extensively cleared over 100 years ago when there was little concern for endangered species or extinction, especially of plant species. Only about 5 percent of the original natural area remains today. There were many unique plants and animals in the region and they suffered from the combined impact of habitat loss and predatory species, which European settlers introduced. At least six species of mammals disappeared and many plant species are now critically endangered.
[9]
In recent decades a great effort has been made to prevent further extinctions by protecting the remaining natural areas and controlling introduced predators. These recovery programs have largely been successful, and they demonstrate that when we set our mind to it we can prevent extinction and even bring some species back to a healthy population size.
[10]

The region of Brazil called the Cerrado is one of the most biodiverse areas on earth. It is largely savannah, open grasslands with large wooded areas. The region, which is three times the size of Texas, was once thought to be marginal or useless for agriculture due to nutritional deficiencies in the soil. Due to advances in agronomy, it has become one of the largest areas of agricultural expansion, allowing Brazil to surpass the United States in soybean production.

The Cerrado is home to 935 species of birds and nearly 300 species of mammals as well as more than 10,000 species of vascular plants. Some of these species, such as the Cerrado fox, jaguar, and maned wolf, are already listed as endangered. A wide range of environmental and conservation groups are focused on the Cerrado, working to prevent further clearing for agriculture. The state of Mato Grosso, which encompasses the largest part of the Cerrado, has established a number of large protected areas. The federal government has also intervened, creating protected areas and large reserves for the exclusive use of indigenous people, who tend not to clear land for farming. As a result, no “great extinction” will occur in the Cerrado.

The Brazilian Cerrado will no doubt fare much better than the Australian Wheatbelt because the Cerrado is being developed in an era when concern for endangered species and extinction is almost universally shared. But both these examples highlight the fact that habitat loss caused by clearing land for farming is the biggest threat to biodiversity today. This is especially true in the tropical developing countries where populations are growing and biodiversity is highest.

There are a number of key elements that will prevent most endangered species from becoming extinct if they are adopted. First and foremost is the establishment of protected areas, some of which are large enough to provide sufficient habitat for large predators. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) works to ensure representative ecosystems are protected around the world, especially in “biodiversity hotspots,” where large numbers of unique species live. Second, there must be proactive programs aimed at individual species in danger of becoming extinct. We now have a great deal of experience with species recovery programs and will no doubt get better as we learn more about what works and what doesn’t. Third, we must recognize that intensive agricultural methods produce more food on less land, thereby reducing the amount of land cleared for farming. This means encouraging the use of improved technology, chemistry, and genetics where this results in increased yields.

The threat of extinction from introduced species is not as great today as it was in the past, but there is still work to be done, such as eradicating rats from islands that support nesting bird colonies. The main pulse of extinctions in modern times occurred as Europeans colonized islands, including the largest one, Australia. The most susceptible native species were wiped out early on and a vast majority of the ones surviving today will likely continue to meet the test of time. There are still active programs in Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii, and other islands to control or eradicate introduced predators and to protect native species from them.

Forestry and Biodiversity

It is most unfortunate that many leading environmental groups have purposely given the public the impression that forestry or “multinational forestry corporations,” as they are fond of calling the industry, are responsible for the majority of deforestation and species extinction. This is one of the gravest mistakes of groups such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund. Everyone involved in the science of land use, biodiversity, and endangered species knows that clearing land for farming is the main cause of deforestation, and hence, along with hunting, one of the main threats of extinction.

When you think about it, it is clear the main purpose of forestry is to cause reforestation, the opposite of deforestation. The big environmental groups are likely aware that the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) publishes a lengthy document titled “State of the World’s Forests” every two years. The FAO makes it abundantly clear that clearing land for agricultural purposes causes 95 percent of deforestation and yet Greenpeace and its friends, preying on the public’s love of trees, paints the forest industry as the villain. It turns out deforestation is not an evil plot; it is what we do to grow our food and make room for our cities and towns. It is a basic part of our survival.

The 1992 UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro produced agreements on two of the three key global environmental issues at that time. Consensus documents on climate change and biodiversity conservation have since led to international treaties on both these subjects. Yet agreement on forests eluded the delegates in Rio due to the conflict over whether the emphasis of an agreement should be the sustainable management of forested areas or on the preservation of forests. Those favoring sustainable forest management recognized the fact that wood is by far the most important source of renewable energy and renewable materials. Those who favor a preservationist approach are generally opposed to large-scale forestry and wish to see the majority of forests placed off-limits to commercial activity. The twain has yet to meet on this point as the debate continues, pitting forest companies and anti-forestry activists against each other as governments struggle to find compromise. At the meeting in Rio it was agreed that in order to continue discussions on forests they would create the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Forests.

In March 1996, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) held a media conference in Geneva during the first meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests. They stated that 50,000 species now become extinct every year due to human activity, more than at any time since the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago. Most significantly, WWF stated that the main cause of these extinctions is “commercial logging.”
[11]
This was largely due, according to then WWF director general Claude Martin, to “massive deforestation in industrialized countries.” The statements made at the media conference were broadcast on radio and television and published in newspapers around the world, giving millions of people the impression that forestry was the main cause of species extinction.

I have tried to determine the basis for this allegation, openly challenging the WWF to provide details of species extinctions caused by logging. It would appear there is no scientific evidence on which to base such a claim. WWF has provided no list of species, nor even one species, that have become extinct due to logging. In particular, the claim of “massive deforestation” in industrialized countries runs counter to information provided by the FAO. According to the FAO, the area of forest in the industrialized world is actually growing by about 0.2% per year, due to the reforestation of land previously cleared for farming.
[12]

In May 1996, I wrote to Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, in his capacity as President of WWF International. I said in part:

Myself and many colleagues who specialize in forest science are distressed at recent statements made by WWF regarding the environmental impact of forestry. These statements indicate a break with WWF’s strong tradition of basing their policies on science and reason. To the best of our knowledge, not a single species has become extinct in North America due to forestry.
[13]

Prince Philip replied:

I have to admit I did not see the draft of the statement that [WWF spokesperson] Jean-Paul Jeanrenaud was to make at the meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests in Geneva. The first two of his comments [50,000 species per year and the dinosaur comparison] are open to question, but they are not seriously relevant to the issue. However, I quite agree that his third statement [logging being the main cause of extinction] is certainly contentious and the points that you make are all good ones. All I can say is that he was probably thinking of tropical forests when he made the comment.
[14]

Since this exchange of correspondence, WWF has changed the way it characterizes the impact of forestry in relation to species extinction. At their Forests for Life conference in San Francisco in May 1997, there was no mention of forestry being the main cause of species extinction. Instead, WWF unveiled a report stating, “three quarters of the continent’s forest ecoregions are threatened with extinction, showing for the first time that it is not just individual species but entire ecosystems that are at risk in North America.”
[15]
The word
extinction
normally means something has been completely eliminated. It is entirely beyond reason to suggest three quarters of the forested areas of North America will become extinct as WWF publicly proclaimed .

In August 1998, again using a United Nations forest conference as a platform, WWF held a media conference at which it declared that 8,753 species of trees—10 percent of the world’s total—are “endangered with extinction.”
[16]
This statement was based on a report titled “World List of Threatened Trees” produced by the World Conservation Monitoring Center with funding from the Dutch government. A reading of the report reveals that of the 8,753 tree species WWF declared “endangered with extinction,” 6,969 are not classified as “endangered” but rather as “vulnerable,” “lower risk,” or “data deficient.”
[17]

Two days after the WWF press conference a feature story appeared in the largest British Columbia daily newspaper with the headline, “Three Trees Native to BC Face Extinction.”
[18]
The three species were: a variety of mountain hemlock, whitebark pine, and western yew. None of these species is listed as endangered in the report. The mountain hemlock is listed as “data deficient,” western yew as “lower risk,” and whitebark pine as “vulnerable” due to an outbreak of fungus that is killing many of the trees in part of their natural range. In a subsequent newspaper article the chief forester for British Columbia stated, “The report doesn’t define any of the B.C. species as in danger of extinction the way the news article noted. So to imply they are at risk of extinction is absolutely incorrect.”
[19]
A spokesperson for WWF responded to the chief forester, stating, “Inevitably some flexibility slips in.”
[20]
Indeed!

The inclusion of species such as the California redwood and the giant sequoia calls the credibility of the entire report into question. They are listed as “lower risk” and “vulnerable,” respectively. It is hard to imagine how anyone could believe either the California redwood or the giant sequoia is at the slightest risk of becoming extinct. Redwood is prolific and flourishes in the coastal zone from southern Oregon to Big Sur, California. The giant sequoia is heavily protected throughout its natural range in the mountains of the Sierra Nevada, and is grown extensively on streets and in parks and gardens from southern California to northern Vancouver Island.

In June 1997, Greenpeace released a report at the United Nations Earth Summit 2 in New York predicting “mass extinctions” and the loss of 50 percent of plants and animals in British Columbia under current land use policies.
[21]
Written by an environmental studies professor from the University of California, Santa Cruz, the report uses island biogeography theory to support these claims. One of the theory’s principles is that if an island in the sea is reduced to 10 percent of its original size it will only be capable of supporting 50 percent of the species supported by the larger island. The Greenpeace report concludes that if only 12 percent of British Columbia is totally protected as parks and wilderness areas, these will be the only “islands” of biodiversity (Since the Greenpeace report was first released, more than 14 percent of B.C. has been preserved as parks and protected areas). In other words, Greenpeace assumes the other 88 percent of the land will have zero value for biodiversity, as if it were all paved with asphalt. This is patently absurd as less than 5 percent of the province has been converted to settlement and farms; the remainder consists of managed native forest or wilderness, where there will always be high biodiversity values.