Introduction and background

We are witnessing the start of a mass extinction of species that will, if allowed to run its course, leave a deeply depauperised biosphere for at least 5 million years – a period twenty times longer than humans have been humans (Myers and Knoll 2001). The phenomenon must rank as one of the most defining episodes in humanity's history. No other human-induced event has imposed a planet-wide impact for more than a few centuries at most. Yet we understand all too little about this phenomenon. We do not know, except in the roughest terms, how many species share the planet with us and how many we are eliminating each year. Will people in the year 2100, and people far further into the future, not look back with astonishment that we were so little concerned with an episode that could turn out to be the most exceptional of its kind since the dinosaurs' demise 65 million years ago?

Moreover the repercussions of what we do – or don't do – in the next couple of decades will affect people for the next several million years, i.e., the period that evolution will need to come up with replacement species.

The state of biodiversity in Brazil

Brazil is one of the richest countries in the world in terms of biodiversity. In its 8.5 million km2 lies one third of the remnant tropical forest of the earth, the biggest wetland complex of the planet (the Pantanal), the biologically richest savannah (the Cerrado), more marsh area than any other country, and the biggest water reserve of the globe. Such wide territory and diversity of biomes renders Brazil in the first rank among megadiversity countries, sheltering an estimated 10 to 20 per cent of all the world's species (Mittermeier et al. 1997).

The data of Mittermeier and his colleagues and Dias (1996) show that over 55,000 species of Brazilian plants have been classified, representing 22 per cent of the recorded flora of the planet. In the animal kingdom, Brazil contains 10 per cent of the world's 4,629 described mammal species; 17 per cent of the 9,702 recorded species of birds; 9 per cent of the 5,460 classified species of reptiles; 10 per cent of the world's 5,020 identified amphibian species; and about 12 per cent of the 24,618 identified species of fish. Besides the diversity of species, Brazilian biodiversity is also important for the number of its endemic species, which, according to Mittermeier et al., is only surpassed by Indonesia.

Introduction

At the outset of the new century, we face the prospect of global biodiversity loss and species extinction on a scale unprecedented in human history, largely at the hands of human society.Were such loss not occasioned by human activity, our response might be to let nature take its course. As it is, we are forced to take responsibility for our actions and derelictions. Although it is the cumulative effect of untold numbers of small actions that is driving the process, it is no longer adequate to hope that halting and reversing such loss can likewise be achieved by large numbers of small actions. It is increasingly evident that project-based approaches to conservation cannot hope meaningfully to engage the economic and social forces driving biodiversity loss at a global scale.

One response to this crisis on the part of some NGOs and government agencies has been to move towards conservation planning and action at a regional scale. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) argues that, ‘to halt the global extinction crisis that we now face, we must conduct conservation planning over larger spatial scales and longer time frames than ever before’ (Dinerstein et al. 2000: 13). WWF has adopted what it terms the ‘ecoregion’ as the appropriate scale for conservation planning, and has identified over 200 ecoregions world-wide as priorities for action.

Editorial introduction

The three case studies that follow all exhibit the subtle links between economies and democracies in transition and protecting beyond the protected. The first case is Estonia, a Baltic state of immense biological richness, but in the zone of economic renaissance. It is possible for that economic pathway to favour biodiversity, so long as governance and democracies swing in tandem. Similarly Croatia is an emerging, post-war democracy with enormous cultural vibrancy and ecological-geological diversity. Harmonising this vibrancy and diversity through the opportunities afforded by a new European integration could create genuine double resilience. Indonesia is also a young nation in terms of democracy, with a legacy of brutal domination of minority cultures and endemic corruption. How far it can shake off this legacy in the name of protecting even the protected remains an open question.

Citizen involvement in biosphere reserve management in Estonia

Martin Welp

Introduction

Estonia is located on the coast of the Baltic Sea. Formerly part of the Soviet Union, Estonia re-established its independence in 1991. It is a young democracy, striving to become a member state in the European Union. With strong economic growth and a determination to base its legislation on EU standards, it is becoming a primary candidate for membership during this decade.

Estonia enjoys enormous biological diversity. If implemented successfully, the Estonian Natura 2000 sites will considerably enrich the Europe-wide network.

The changing policy environment for biodiversity in the European Union

Europe likes to keep its biodiversity on hold. After two millennia of expansion of human activity, few of the original habitats and species are unaffected. For the most part what is still of conservation value is located in designated sites with very varying degrees of protection. The ‘jewel in the crown’ philosophy of safeguarding living museums of biodiversity has, for a long time, been the preferred strategy in Europe. However, the growing scientific evidence is that many species and habitats of value for biodiversity lie outside the protected areas. There is therefore some pressure to expand the protection regime to areas beyond the safeguarded borders. This process of widening the policy base is spurred by successful coalitions of wildlife and rural amenity groups, by the growing tourism and leisure industry, by the political and economic insupportability of the EU Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies, and by the shift to emphasising rural distinctiveness as part of the identity of locality that is sweeping throughout Europe (see O'Riordan 2001).

This chapter will assess the history and prognosis for European biodiversity. It will particularly examine the response by EU member states to the EU Habitats Directive (the Council Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna).

Maintaining the planet's biodiversity is an important societal goal. Meeting the needs and aspirations of a growing world population is also an important societal goal.If the steps needed to achieve these goals always coincided, and if society's goals dictated public and private actions, then there would be little need for this book. But neither of these conditions holds true. Development needs are often best met through actions that simplify biodiversity–agriculture being a case in point. And all too often societal goals are undermined by actions taken by the wealthy or powerful within government or the private sector to accrue more wealth or power.

As a result, we have less biodiversity today than we did in 1900 and we will have far less biodiversity in 2100 than we do today. Is this a catastrophe? From a utilitarian standpoint, probably not. The extinction of most species over the coming decades will have few practical consequences for human livelihoods. This is not to say that extinctions do not sometimes have serious ramifications. Chapter 1 shows that the ecosystem values of biodiversity can be considerable and could have major effects on future economies if lost to future generations. In general, the economic and social impacts of the hundreds of species that have gone extinct over the past century or thousands facing extinction today are still on the small side.