[Taxacom] Fwd: FW: Biodiversity and Species Value

Fri Jun 11 23:16:56 CDT 2010

What most of you do not know, and Shuey is too 
modest to even hint, is that he is a first-class 
taxonomist.   Dan Janzen

>Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:52:46 -0400
>Thread-Topic: Biodiversity and Species Value
>Thread-Index: AcsJiovsEzTNi8RDSkq6zXDk9gT73AAGhBgw
>From: "John Shuey" <jshuey at TNC.ORG>
>To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>Subject: [Taxacom] FW: Biodiversity and Species Value
>List-Id: Biological Systematics Discussion List <taxacom.mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom>,
>	<mailto:taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom>
>List-Post: <mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>List-Help: <mailto:taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom>,
>	<mailto:taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu?subject=subscribe>
>Sender: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
>
>
>I'll pluck some of Neil's text and add some 
>divergent opinions from an applied conservation 
>perspective. 
>
>>I agree that ecosystem conservation has to be the priority and bow to
>>John Shuey's expertise, but I am disturbed by the apparent assertion
>>that phylogenetic diversity *of ecosystems* is irrelevant, and also the
>>implicit assumption that recent radiations of closely related,
>>morphologically similar taxa are more interesting than isolated,
>>relictual lineages.
>
>>Of course all ecosystems should be conserved and that should always be
>>the ultimate goal, but surely it would be a tragedy if we lost the
>>ultrabasic maquis habitats of New Caledonia, the Fitzroya forests of
>>Patagonia or the remaining cloud forests of Borneo because resources and
>>attention were instead focused on other ecosystems that are equally
>>threatened but not nearly as distinctive (i.e. as different from other
>>ecosystems both absolute and in evolutionary-historical terms).
>
>So - three points here
>
>1 - No doubt New Caledonia, Patagonia and Borneo 
>are rich with unusual and primitive lineages - 
>and these are highly valued by evolutionary 
>biologists and taxonomists.  But like I said - 
>value is subjective, and if we are making global 
>judgments of value, we need global input.  How 
>do we think subsistence farmers around the world 
>would vote on ecosystem importance.  I'm 
>guessing the Kalunga Community would vote for 
>rock cerrado not New Caledonia forest. 
>Residents of Rio de Janeiro value the forests 
>that supply their water (also happen to be 
>reasonably species rich).   If we are 
>prioritizing global decisions based on value - 
>we had better get global assessments of value. 
>Trust me - New Caledonia won't make the cut when 
>it comes to subjective global value if you 
>factor in everyone else's subjective thoughts.
>
>2. Which brings me to  - successful conservation 
>is local.  If you pull out the subjective 
>valuation, and replace it with a vision of equal 
>and critical value for biodiversity, then you 
>can "exploit" local biases in value.  So create 
>a global vision for success - but then use the 
>Kalunga's love the cerrado (even though it is a 
>tough place to live). As a community, they 
>control the future of over 250,00ha of the best 
>remaining. Talk to the people of Rio about how 
>important their forests are directly to them - 
>they just placed water use taxes on themselves 
>to conserve the ecosystems they value most - 
>those that provide them water! (this is in place 
>in Sao Paulo and Quito as well)   Believe it or 
>not, people in Indiana love their ecosystems too 
>- and just yesterday we announced a State 
>initiative to conserve over 95 miles of 
>floodplain along one of the richest freshwater 
>resources in the US - the Wabash River. 
>
>3  If successful conservation is local - then 
>local conservation has to fit into the global 
>picture.  We pushed a US$20M project about 14 
>years ago to restore connectivity to a small 
>swath (~12,00ha) of Indiana prairie and savanna. 
>I didn't preach things like "I know the cerrado 
>is more important than our North American 
>prairie, but let's do this anyway...  .  We 
>pointed out that global conservation success 
>requires that all ecosystems be conserved, and 
>that right here in our back yard we can make a 
>contribution that will have lasting impact on 
>this global vision.   Likewise, Brasilians 
>working to conserve Araucária forests, don't 
>need to hear that their forest isn't nearly as 
>primitive as... " - they already have their 
>hands full and shouldn't have to explain away 
>some scientific opinion.  Soya and cattle 
>interests don't need additional tools to justify 
>destroying the few remaining fragments.
>
>If New Caledonia is going to conserve its 
>critical ecosystems (and I have to admit, I am 
>totally ignorant about the status of 
>conservation there), it will happen locally or 
>not at all.  The people need to value their 
>ecosystems enough to act, or force either 
>France? or the local government to act 
>appropriately.  While outside entities like the 
>UN, World Bank or even an NGO might be able to 
>"help" with resources -  successful conservation 
>can't be implemented from the outside (plenty of 
>paper parks can attest to the failure of this 
>approach).
>
>To throw some shades of gray at this:
>
>I actually do think it would be a huge loss if 
>all these plesiomorphic lineages were lost.  But 
>how I would inject my personal opinion into 
>decisions that impact larger society  - that is 
>where things get problematic.  Believe it or 
>not, there are some groups that actually value 
>my opinion - and the last thing I would want to 
>do is introduce my biases, such that they make 
>important decisions based on my personal whims.
>
>And prioritization base on urgency or threat is 
>fine - but the key is that all representative 
>sites need to be conserved.  To be clear - I 
>honestly don't believe any one species is more 
>important than another.  Unless of course we're 
>talking about my favorite butterflies....
>
>
>John A Shuey, Ph.D.
>Director of Conservation Science
>
>jshuey at tnc.org
>317.829.3898 - direct
>317.951.8818 - front desk
>317.917.2478 - Fax
>
>nature.org       The Nature Conservancy
>Indiana Field Office
>620 E. Ohio St.
>Indianapolis, IN 46202
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>Taxacom Mailing List
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
>The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be 
>searched with either of these methods:
>
>(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
>Or (2) a Google search specified as: 
>site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your 
>search terms here