Letters

Wanted: Scientists in the CBDProcess

An international, high-profile scien-tific conference that is central to thereaders of Conservation Biology andthat may be of utmost importancefor the future of biodiversity was re-cently held in Rome. At the 13thmeeting of the scientific board of theConvention on Biological Diversity,over 700 participants gathered fromall over the world for 5 days. Nev-ertheless, one group was conspic-uously missing at this conference:scientists.

The Convention on Biological Di-versity (CBD; www.cbd.int) is cur-rently the most important interna-tional political instrument that dealswith the increasing threat of biodi-versity loss. Almost every countryin the world is party to the con-vention, and the work of implemen-tation shapes the political processwith respect to biological resourcesworldwide. We write to express ourdeep concern over the fact that scien-tific participation in the work of theCBD is extremely limited and is be-ing weakened. The scientific boardof the convention—the SubsidiaryBody on Scientific, Technical andTechnological Advice (SBSTTA)—isincreasingly being politicized, effec-tively halting scientific discussionand progress, strongly limiting thequality of recommendations that willbe taken to the decision-making bian-nual Conference of the Parties (COP).We stress the urgent need to improvethe scientific input and influence inthe CBD process.

Together with the United NationsFramework Convention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC), the Conventionon Biological Diversity representskey agreements adopted at the 2ndEarth Summit in 1992. The Conven-tion on Climate Change has been ex-ceedingly successful in raising the im-portant issue of global warming tothe general public and political lead-ers. Underlining this significant im-pact was the awarding of the 2007Nobel Peace Prize to the Intergov-ernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) and Al Gore. In contrast, theUNFCCC’s sister convention on bi-ological diversity leads a much lessrecognized and scientifically poorexistence.

The objectives of the CBD are con-servation of biological diversity, sus-tainable use of its components, andfair and equitable sharing of bene-fits arising from the use of geneticresources. In the 42 articles of theconvention, and especially in its asso-ciated work programs, relatively de-tailed requests are made of individ-ual parties to ensure progress towardthese objectives. They include de-veloping national strategies and pro-grams for assessing and monitoringall levels of biological diversity, andhalting activities that erode such di-versity. Currently, 190 nations areparties to the CBD. Andorra, Soma-lia, Iraq, the Holy See, and the UnitedStates are not parties to CBD.

The clear messages and detailedrecommendations of the CBD, to-gether with the worldwide sup-port and active process of meetings,developed strategies, and workinggroups provide the CBD with the po-

tential to truly make a difference withrespect to the ongoing sixth mega-extinction event. Yet, effective ac-tion on the basis of our best possi-ble scientific knowledge is increas-ingly hindered by political quarrelsand turns of phrases.

This is not to say that progress hasnot been made within the frameworkof the CBD during its 16 years of ex-istence. For instance, adopted agree-ments include a protocol that seeksto protect biological diversity fromthe potential risks posed by livingmodified organisms resulting frommodern biotechnology (The Carta-gena Protocol on Biosafety), a cleargoal of halting all further loss ofbiodiversity by 2010 (the so-called2010 target), guiding principles forhow to deal with alien species (thespread of which constitutes one ofthe major agents of biodiversity loss),and practical measures for assur-ing maintenance and developmentof taxonomic competence for as-sessment of species diversity (GlobalTaxonomic Initiative). Furthermore,thematic programs of work focus at-tention on particular issues, for ex-ample, on forest and agricultural bio-diversity.

Nevertheless, the scientific bodyof the convention, the SBSTTA, is in-creasingly dominated by politiciansand professional negotiators. We, theundersigned of this letter, consti-tuted the Swedish delegation at the13th meeting of the SBSTTA (18–22 February 2008). We are active re-searchers and conservation managersand as such felt very much alone atthis SBSTTA. We had come to dis-cuss and provide recommendations

814Conservation Biology, Volume 22, No. 4, 814–818C©2008 Society for Conservation BiologyDOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00991.x

Letters 815

on how to identify conservation pri-ority areas in deep sea waters, man-age forest biodiversity in relation toclimate change, minimize and mon-itor spread of alien species andpopulations, and manage agricul-tural biodiversity with an ecosys-tem approach. Instead, we foundourselves devoting hours of discus-sions on whether to “welcome” or“bear in mind” a report from a par-ticular working group, or whetherreptiles, amphibians, fishes, and as-sociated species kept ex situ by pri-vate persons or institutions shouldbe called “aquarium species,” “terrar-ium species,” or both, and whetherthe Conference of the Parties shouldeven be informed about the potentialrisks for biodiversity associated withthe introduction of genetically mod-ified trees. One of the delegates re-vealed his biological ignorance whenstating his country’s position on alienspecies with respect to “inter- andintraspecific biodiversity—whateverthe hell that means.”

Of course, scientists are not theonly ones responsible for the failureto keep the SBSTTA a scientific fo-rum. Some parties evidently want tosteer the process away from scienceto be able to make sure that decisionstaken within the CBD framework donot interfere with national issues oftrade and economic growth. Manyother parties have given in to thechanging nature of the discussionsand nowadays send a delegation pre-dominantly consisting of nonscien-tists, although they maintain the viewthat SBSTTA ought to be scientific.Clearly, the process of increasingscientific input in convention workmust to be two-fold—political willand scientific interest are needed. Butpoliticians typically do not act with-out pressure, and there is a strongneed for increased pressure on politi-cians to halt the ongoing erosion ofscientific quality of the SBSTTA.

The fact that political and eco-nomical interests are currently strongwithin the CBD process should, how-ever, not deter the scientific com-

munity from getting involved in theprocess. Rather, this should moti-vate us even more to take a strongposition. If the current ineffectivetrend for the CBD work is to bereversed, we as scientists need toreclaim our position as providers ofguidelines, knowledge, and perspec-tives for the decision-making parties.As David Johns concludes in his edi-torial in 2007, “The knowledge—andthe proposals from that knowledge—will be naught if we lack polit-ical effectiveness.” The CBD pro-cess is the largest global forum forprotecting biodiversity and a placewhere conservation scientists shouldstrive to become politically effective.Here, if anywhere, we need “thedefenders of nature to please rise”(Naess 1986).

The Swedish government has ap-pointed a Scientific Council on Bio-logical Diversity with the primary aimof providing advice with respect tothe CBD and its implementation. Thiscouncil was established soon afterSweden became a party to the con-vention in 1993, and its members areselected to represent a broad field ofbiological diversity research with in-sight in practical management. Mem-bers of the council attend SBSTTAand other expert meetings depend-ing on their particular expertise in re-lation to the issues being discussed.This strategy is considered to workwell both from a political and scien-tific perspective and may well be ap-propriate for other countries.

We urge our colleagues in scienceto become familiar with the currentwork of the convention. Find outwho represents your country in thescientific body, provide your scien-tific input on the issues dealt with tothose representatives, and stress theneed for a scientific advisory functionfor CBD implementation within yourcountry. Colleagues in the UnitedStates need to voice the importanceof their country becoming a partyto the CBD, thereby sharing the re-sponsibility to secure and maintainbiodiversity globally. The voices of

conservation biologists worldwideare badly needed—please get in-volved in the CBD process now!

Linda Laikre,∗ Bengt-Gunnar Jonsson,†Margareta Ihse,‡ Mark Marissink,§Ann-Marie Dock Gustavsson,∗∗ TorbjornEbenhard,†† Lovisa Hagberg,‡‡ Par-OlofStal,§§ Susanne von Walter,∗∗∗ and PerWramner†††

∗Department of Zoology, Division ofPopulation Genetics, Stockholm Univer-sity, S-10691 Stockholm, Sweden, emaillinda.laikre@popgen.su.se†Department of Natural Sciences, Mid SwedenUniversity, S-85170 Sundsvall, Sweden‡Department of Physical Geography andQuaternary Geology, Stockholm University,S-10691 Stockholm, Sweden§Swedish Environmental Protection Agency,S-10648 Stockholm, Sweden∗∗Swedish Board of Agriculture, Dragar-brunnsgatan 35, S-75320 Uppsala, Sweden††Swedish Biodiversity Centre, the SwedishUniversity of Agricultural Sciences and Upp-sala University, Box 7007, S-75007, Uppsala,Sweden‡‡Swedish Forest Agency, S-55183 Jonkoping,Sweden§§Swedish Forest Agency, Forest North Divi-sion, S-82683 Soderhamn, Sweden∗∗∗SwedBio, Box 7007, S-75007 Uppsala,Sweden†††Coastal Management Research Center,Sodertorn University College, S14189, Hud-dinge, Sweden

Literature Cited

Johns, D. 2007. Like it or not, politics is the so-lution. Conservation Biology 21:287–288.

Naess, A. 1986. Intrinsic value: will the defend-ers of nature please rise? Pages 504–515 inM. Soule, editor. Conservation biology. Thescience of scarcity and diversity. SinauerAssociates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.

Animal Rights and Conservation

Perry and Perry (2008) suggest thatanimal rights advocates and conser-vationists would both benefit fromimproved cooperation, yet they pro-vide few tangible examples of whereand how such cooperation could ac-tually occur. Instead, they spend agreat deal of time reviewing numer-ous cases of ongoing conflict be-tween animal rights advocates andconservationists. In fact, the authorsseem to make the common mis-take of confusing animal rights andanimal welfare. Animal rights and

Conservation Biology

Volume 22, No. 4, 2008

816 Letters

conservation ethics are, in fact, in-compatible, at the most fundamen-tal level (Hutchins 2007a). Animalrightists place equal value on indi-viduals of both common and en-dangered species, whereas conser-vationists clearly give preference tothreatened and endangered species,especially when a species has be-come endangered as the result ofhuman activities. This explains whythe father of animal rights, Tom Re-gan (1983), has characterized any at-tempt to usurp the rights of indi-vidual animals to conserve speciesor ecosystems as “environmental fas-cism.” This is also why animal rightsproponents have fought so vehe-mently against the control or elimi-nation of destructive invasive speciesand, in fact, virtually every other formof wildlife research or management(Hutchins 2007a, 2007b, 2008a,2008b).

It would be wonderful if we couldall get along, but it is time to rec-ognize that some ideas are superiorto others because they clearly resultin the “greatest good.” As a conser-vationist, I reject animal rights phi-losophy. This unrealistic and highlyreductionist view, which focuses ex-clusively on individual sentient ani-mals, is not a good foundation forthe future of life on our planetand does not recognize the inter-relationships that exist among var-ious species in functioning ecosys-tems. It is time to face up to thefact that animal rights and conser-vation are inherently incompatibleand that one cannot be an animalrights proponent and a conservation-ist simultaneously. To suggest oth-erwise only feeds into the grow-ing public confusion over animalrights, welfare, and conservation andtheir vastly different implications forwildlife management and conserva-tion policy (Hutchins 2007a, 2007b,2008a, 2008b). This is not to say thatindividual animals are not morallyconsiderable—they are. But wildlifemanagers and conservationists aregoing to continue to have to con-trol or eliminate populations of inva-

sive species, reduce overpopulationin native species, and cull individualanimals that threaten human safetyand food and economic security. Inshort, if wildlife is to survive, we mustcontinue to maintain the tenuousbalance that exists between hu-mans and wildlife (Conover 2002;Hutchins 2007a, 2008a, 2008b).

Serendipitous compatibilities dohappen when extremist animal rightsgroups behave more like mainstreamanimal welfare organizations. For ex-ample, PETA, one of the most stridentof animal rights groups, now favorsthe live capture and euthanasia offeral cats as opposed to trap, neuter,and release (TNR) (PETA 2007), butnot for the same reasons as conser-vationists. In controlling populationsof feral cats, conservationists showtheir moral and ecological concernfor the millions of native migratorybirds and small mammals killed bythese introduced predators annually.In contrast, PETA believes that indi-vidual feral cats suffer as the resultof a lack of human companionshipand care and that they are better offdead—a viewpoint that is more com-patible with animal welfare as op-posed to animal rights philosophy.Nevertheless, other animal advocateorganizations, such as the HumaneSociety of the United States, continueto support TNR to the detriment ofwildlife.

Should wildlife managers and con-servationists be concerned about in-dividual animal welfare? Yes, theyshould. Should more research bedone on humane alternatives forpopulation control? Absolutely. Willthis completely eliminate the needfor lethal control? Absolutely not(Conover 2002; Hutchins 2007a,2008a, 2008b).

Tackling the growing conflict be-tween animal rights and conservationis going to take a great deal morecourage than that displayed by Perryand Perry (2008), who should haveheeded Michael Soule’s warning is-sued over a decade ago: “Conflictsbetween animal rights groups andmanagement agencies are increasing

in frequency and cost—the cost isbeing borne by endangered speciesand ecosystems as well as by the pub-lic that pays for expensive rescue op-erations and time consuming courtbattles. The minimization of suchconflicts will require both public ed-ucation and courageous leadership”(Soule 1990). Cooperation and com-promise, no matter what the cost, isnot courageous leadership.

Michael Hutchins

The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD 20814,U.S.A., email michael@wildlife.org

Literature Cited

Conover, M. 2002. Resolving human-wildlifeconflicts: the science of wildlife damagemanagement. Lewis Publishers, Washing-ton, D.C.

Hutchins, M. 2007a. The limits of compassion.The Wildlife Professional Summer:42–44.

Hutchins, M. 2007b. The animal rights-conservation debate: can zoos and aquar-iums play a role? Pages 92–109 in A. Zim-mermann, M. Hatchwell, L. Dickie, and C.West, editors. Zoos in the 21st century: cat-alysts for conservation? Cambridge Univer-sity Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Hutchins, M. 2008a. Why we must con-tinue wildlife populations. InformationSpring:29–33.

Hutchins, M. 2008b. To cull or not to cull: thatis the question as South Africa lifts its banon elephant culling. The Wildlife Profes-sional Summer:38–40.

Perry, D., and G. Perry. 2008. Improving in-teractions among animal rights groups andconservation biologists. Conservation Biol-ogy 22:27–35.

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment ofAnimals). 2007. Feral cats: trapping isthe kindest solution. Fact sheet. PETA,Norfolk, Virginia. Available from http://www.helpinganimals.com/Factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=141 (accessedMay 2007).

Regan, T. 1983. The case for animal rights. Uni-versity of California Press, Berkeley, Cali-fornia.

Soule, M. E. 1990. The onslaught of alienspecies, and other challenges in the com-ing decades. Conservation Biology 4:233–239.

Animal Rights and Conservation

Managing natural resources requiresan understanding of biology and the

Conservation Biology

Volume 22, No. 4, 2008

Letters 817

ability to manage people. Althoughconservation biologists often preferthe former, the reality is that thelatter is the more difficult and of-ten more crucial skill. The animalrights movement (AR, a group wedefine very broadly) has been verysuccessful at motivating a broad con-stituency to aggressively block con-servation actions. We are gratifiedby the interest in our article (Perry& Perry 2008), in which we triedto make two points. First, that thebelligerent interactions we have typ-ically had with AR proponents inthe past have not been conducive tosuccessful conservation action and,second, that many members of thetwo communities share some ulti-mate goals and may be willing to part-ner under some circumstances. Insupport of this, we briefly reviewedthree case studies in Perry and Perry(2008), two of which were tradi-tional and led to major setbacks. Thethird involved limited cooperationand resulted in successful conserva-tion action. We suggest that reducingthe risk that the pet trade poses forinvasive species control might be onearena for cooperation. We are thank-ful for the updates and views pre-sented by Paul (2008) and Hutchins(2008 [this issue]).

It is certainly true, as shown byHutchins (2008), that extremists inboth camps are not open to dialogue.Nevertheless, there are examples ofcooperation and shared goals. Weprovided one and Hutchins (2008)describes another, but nonethelessconcludes “that animal rights andconservation are inherently incom-patible and that one cannot be ananimal rights proponent and a con-servationist simultaneously.” Usingquestionnaires mailed to potentialmanuscript reviewers for journals fo-cusing on organismal biology, Sagivand Werner (1999) showed that mostrespondents value both conservationand avoidance of cruelty to animals.We are not aware of any similar stud-ies aimed at AR proponents, but sus-pect that many of them would alsoshow interest in both areas, although

doubtlessly would rank them differ-ently. Arguably, that is because ARproponents are probably not very ed-ucated on ecological issues. Whosefault is it that they are better exposedto AR arguments? In what way wouldlack of engagement possibly addressthis problem?

We argue that, pragmatically, itdoes not matter why People for theEthical Treatment of Animals (PETA)now supports the euthanasia of feralcats (PETA 2007), something conser-vation biologists have long arguedfor. Similarly, the reasons driving theAustralian Royal Society for the Pre-vention of Cruelty to Animals to backthe plan to kill invasive cane toads(Bufo marinus) (Associated Press2008) is immaterial. What mattersin terms of achieving conservationgoals is that members of the twosides have a common objective andwould both benefit if they cooper-ated in trying to achieve it. Whetherthey choose to collaborate remainsto be seen, but the camps are notalways as far apart as some imagine.For example, on the issue of reducingthe risks posed by the pet trade, thegoals of conservationists and AR pro-ponents overlap (Perry & Perry 2008)and match those of public health offi-cials (Brown 2008). Without a doubt,there will be cases where the philo-sophical divide is large enough thatcooperation is impossible. The worstpossible outcome from trying, how-ever, is failure, which leaves all sidesno worse off than if they had notmade the attempt. That a less acrimo-nious outcome can be achieved onan issue such as non-native speciesshould encourage goal-oriented peo-ple to try and reach one wheneverpossible.

Hutchins (2008) states that lethalcontrol of problem animals is likelyto continue to be needed in somecircumstances, and we agree. Con-siderable philosophical attention hasbeen devoted to a limited range ofanimal welfare issues and has beenthe cause of much of the discordon this issue. We find it discourag-ing, however, that much less atten-

tion has been devoted to the ethicalchoices required in situations wherethe well-being of individual animalsconflicts with those of other animals,whether individually or collectively,as in the case of invasive species. Wehope this oversight might begin to beaddressed in the near future, provid-ing a more appropriate ethical con-text for such discussions to occur in.

We fail to see how the coopera-tion we called for shows a lack of“courageous leadership,” as claimedby Hutchins (2008). We believe thatfacing the financial interests thatdrive much of the invasive speciescrisis (agriculture, horticulture, andthe pet industry) is not the choiceof cowards. More important, it ad-dresses the causes of the problem,rather than advocating a mop-up ap-proach for some of its consequences.Doing so will require considerablymore political clout than the conser-vation world has been able to muster,and the passion and dedication of ARproponents would be an invaluableasset.

Finally, we argue that our proposaldirectly addresses Soule’s (1990)statement that “Tolerance and com-promise are essential if conservationbiology is to accomplish its mission.”Like Soule (1990), we end by quot-ing Nobel Prize winner Murray Gell-Mann, “History shows clearly that hu-manity is moved forward not by peo-ple who stop at every moment in anattempt to gauge the ultimate successof their venture, but by those whothink deeply about what is right andput all their energy into it.”

Gad Perry∗ and Dan Perry†

∗Department of Natural Resource Manage-ment, Box 42125, Texas Tech University,Lubbock, TX 79409-2125, U.S.A., email gad.perry@ttu.edu†Interdisciplinary program in Science, Tech-nology & Society, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel

Literature Cited

Associated Press. 2008. Kill-a-toad day?Australia area considers. Animal groupOKs idea—as long as it’s humane, likedeath by freezing. MSNBC, New York.

Conservation Biology

Volume 22, No. 4, 2008

818 Letters

Available from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23918560/ (accessed 15 March2008).

Brown, C. M. 2008. Reaping the whirlwind?Human disease from exotic pets. Bio-Science 58:6–7.

Hutchins, M. 2008. Animal rights and conser-vation: there is no middle ground. Conser-vation Biology 22: in press.

Paul, E. 2008. Conservation Biology 22: inpress.

Perry, D., and Perry, G. 2008. Improving in-

teractions among animal rights groups andconservation biologists. Conservation Biol-ogy 22:27–35.

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment ofAnimals). 2007. Feral cats: trapping isthe kindest solution. Fact sheet. PETA,Norfolk, Virginia. Available from http://www.helpinganimals.com/Factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=141 (accessed 15March 2008)

Sagiv, L., and Y. L. Werner. 1999. Reviewer at-titudes to the treatment of animals and to

the conservation of species: implicationsof a preliminary survey. Pages 92–104 inProceedings of the 9th international con-ference of the International Federation ofScience Editors. International Federationof Science Editors, Sharm-El-Sheikh, Egypt,7–11 June 1998.

Soule, M.E. 1990. The onslaught of alienspecies, and other challenges in the com-ing decades. Conservation Biology 4:233–239.

Conservation Biology

Volume 22, No. 4, 2008