This was originally written as an article for the Spring 2011 Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition newsletter. It's a bit long, and a little heavier than most of my postings, but gives an overview of why I think it's important to do the work we do. I'd be really interested in hearing your thoughts.
Every time I give a talk on the Oregon spotted frog and the work we’re doing to save it, I get a variation on the same question: “Why?”. Why are we spending all this time and money on one species when there are so many other problems we could be addressing? Admittedly, I’ve been struggling with this question myself, so I’ve been asking many people and doing a lot of reading to figure out where I stand on the subject. Here’s what I’ve found. I’d love to hear your point of view, too.
Biodiversity
Science uses the word ‘biodiversity’ to describe the astounding variety of life that exists on the planet, from bacteria and fungi to plants and animals. The term ‘ecosystem services’ describes the services provided (for free) by communities of organisms that are useful to humans. Ecosystem services allow us to breathe oxygen, grow crops in soil, drink clean water, and they maintain livable temperatures and moisture in the atmosphere. Without these services, we cannot survive. Neither can most of our living neighbors.
Biodiversity is important because each and every known and unknown creature has a role to play in the continued functioning of ecosystems as we use them today. However, more important than maintaining the ecosystem services of today, biodiversity provides possibilities for the uncertain future.
Genetic blueprints that direct construction of living creatures are the fundamental source of biodiversity. As genes mutate, through chance or error, variability is introduced to an organism (be it a bacterium or an ape) that is then successful in reproducing or not, depending on the biological and abiotic (physical) circumstances in which it finds itself with its newly minted features.
This genetic variety is the foundation of diversity that allows populations to adapt to environmental change. Individual organisms and species provide complete, self-generating and unique ensembles of genes. They interbreed to produce fertile, slightly different, offspring, providing a method for the continuation of genetic diversity.
A wide variety of species provides options for the composition of ecosystems in a wide range of (changing) physical environments. The more options available, the higher the functionality of the ecosystem. Built-in redundancies in food chains and processes improve the security of environmental services on which we depend. Biodiversity must be maintained to provide future options and opportunities for human sustenance and wellbeing.
Ethics
As such, the argument for biodiversity is a social argument, otherwise labeled an anthropocentric (human-oriented) ethical argument. Secular philosophers explain ethics as a series of social contracts that permit humans to live in social groups where we are dependent on one another for support. It follows that that moral duties to the environment stem from our duties to the earth’s human inhabitants.
Theologians are exploring our sacred obligations towards God’s Creation, our moral duty to be stewards of the earth and its creatures. Christian Colleges are now driving the ‘Creation Care’ movement in the Christian church. This non-humanist viewpoint assumes that other life-forms have value beyond that placed on them by man: they have intrinsic value assigned by God.
Philosophically, if you’ll forgive my musings, the only option for a secular human to enlist ‘intrinsic values’ as justification for species recovery is to value the whole living planet above all else. This earth ethic promotes the maintenance of life in a balanced environment where humans are a valued member of the earthling community, but not its driver or focus. Still, it seems impossible to me that intrinsic value is not ultimately assigned by humans. How can it be any other way?
So about that frog…
There’s no doubt our planet is in trouble. Our ecosystems are stretched thin and are cracking under the strain of supporting so many humans. Our environment as a whole must be sustained to sustain us. Why then do we focus on one species rather than the processes as a whole?
Single species provide us with a point of focus for our recovery activities. This idea has been tagged with many keywords: umbrella species, focal species, and flagship species are just a few. By targeting a frog that depends on warm shallow wetlands, we are working to restore a lost ecosystem, and its ecosystem services, to the Fraser Valley.
Biodiversity recovery has to exist on an incredibly wide spectrum of scales, from site-specific soil management to mitigation of climate change. Ecosystem planning has been lauded as the way of the future. However, evaluations of large-scale recovery plans show that when we increase scale to incorporate many species and ecosystems, we are rarely successful in our implementation.
By focusing on one species in the Fraser Valley, we accomplish recovery activities. We study and restore wetland habitats. We build new habitats in degraded environments. In doing so we provide homes, not only for the Oregon spotted frog, but also for the amphibians, insects, plants, fish and other wildlife whose wetland homes had been eliminated along with the frogs’. We educate and engage the public, and we try to inspire a greater understanding and love of life.
Our frog work may be small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, but we must trust that elsewhere others are working at a similar scale, and some at smaller and larger scales. The cumulative actions of the Fraser Valley Watershed Coalition members are an excellent example, with many projects at many scales represented across the Valley. This gives me hope, and it makes me optimistic for the future.
