Protecting Earth's Biodiversity Hotspots

One day, as I wandered aimlessly from one Internet site to another, I came across the Web site of Conservation International, a group dedicated to the conservation of thousands of species that are on the brink of extinction. As we all know, unsustainable living is having such a detrimental effect on wildlife that is hovering on the edge of irreparable destruction, enhancing the natural extinction process to such an extent that we might be facing a mass extinction like the one that killed the dinosaurs.

What I did not know, however, was the concept of “hotspots” that CI has implemented and the consequent awareness and protection of wildlife it has achieved. As described on its Web site, these “biodiversity hotspots” are home to huge numbers of endemic species, yet their combined area of remaining habitat covers only 2.3 percent of the Earth’s land surface. Each hotspot faces extreme threats, having lost at least 70 percent of its original natural vegetation. To put this into context, over 50 percent of the world’s plant species and 42 percent of all terrestrial vertebrate species are endemic to the 34 biodiversity hotspots, and if they are not protected effectively and immediately, they will be lost.

Because conservation budgets are insufficient given the number of species threatened with extinction, endemism, or “the degree to which species are found solely in a given place,” plays a crucial role in decision-making and prioritizing which areas to conserve first. The higher the degree of endemism of a hotspot, the more irreplaceable it is. The more irreplaceable it is, the more costly it is to conserve it. Here the problem arises—stopping anthropogenic species extinctions is weighed against limited conservation resources. Ideally endemism would win, but integrating cost and opportunity into a web of conservation priorities and threats is not easy. With time, threats to them and their impacts change, and our understanding of them is continually improving. This is why, as CI argues, we “need a dual conservation strategy that always prioritizes endemic-rich areas and ensures that we protect the most threatened places, while preemptively protecting equally unique places that are not yet under extreme threat.” This “double-edged sword” is essential if we are to maximize the protection and prosperity of these fast-dwindling hotspots. Focusing most of the efforts on areas both under extreme threat and housing the most variety of species, while at the same time leaving enough energy to protect potentially threatened areas so the work does not continue in an endless loop is a lot of balls to juggle—yet CI seems to be successfully doing so.

Thus efforts must be focused on threatened biodiversity hotspots and high-biodiversity wilderness areas, which are irreplaceable but still largely intact—this is why CI’s work is both so effective and so crucial to maintaining the ecological diversity of the planet. It is reassuring to know that this is not a lone effort on CI’s part, but that the world is catching up on the importance of conserving these hotspots. According to the CI Web site, more than $750 million has been invested in saving such hotspots in the past 15 years—“perhaps the largest financial investment in any single conservation strategy.” This sounds like a definite solution to the problem at hand—yet as a rather cynical environmental activist, I cannot help asking myself how these investments are actually put to use in a world where habitat destruction and deforestation, ceaseless anthropogenic climate change, and genetic engineering is leading to a soon-to-be irreversible mass extinction. Introduction of exotic plant species into hotspots, increasing numbers of predatory species, and direct exploitation of species for food, medicine, and trade are all growing and ceaseless threats. Combined with the detrimental effects of global warming and climate fluctuations, they do not leave much room for a significant improvement unless the investments have the highest priority on everyone’s agenda and are implemented in the most effective strategy possible. As another environmental sciences major, Ilana Somasunderam, CC ’09, puts it: “perhaps the government of the U.S., a country whose unsustainable lifestyle is greatly contributing to the biodiversity issue, should make this a priority. Sure, they throw a few million dollars here and another couple million dollars there, but when you think of the money that’s being spent on the war in Iraq (which amounts to about $200 million a day) it just seems like nothing is being done about this problem on a governmental level.”

Our initial response must therefore be the establishment and effective management of protected areas—feasible since the total area in question is insignificant compared to the importance of the life it contains. It should, on principle, be possible to protect these areas and exchange a small fraction of our material gain from them for the continuation of the ecological diversity crucial to the functioning of the planet that we also inhabit. We must focus on making sure that such habitats will be protected and taken care of in the long term, as more endangered habitats are added. This is not so straightforward, since our planet is a dynamic system whose workings are changing—species’ habitats fluctuate and shift as climate conditions change, and defining and protecting such hotspots is an active problem. Our response must not only focus on the present needs of hotspots, but also make preparations for future habitats in danger, and hope that everyone realizes its importance before it is too late. In short, we need to follow the footsteps that CI has taken and lend our support to this workable and optimally efficient strategy.

The author is a Columbia College junior majoring in environmental science. She is on the communications committee of the EcoReps.