To Infinity…

Biodiversity and Democracy; Rethinking Society and Nature is an interesting and provocative narrative of the evermore apparent need for balance between humankind and nature. Paul M. Wood explores the issue of biodiversity across the globe, presenting a thorough analysis of our current land-use decision model, and the resultant effects on species and ecosystems. This book provides an excellent resource for students, professors, or stakeholders involved in land-use decision making and environmental sciences. In reviewing this book criterion include: background of the author; overall content; organization; and personal reflections. In brief, this book is a challenging read, often logically cumbersome, but an excellent resource for better understanding issues of biodiversity and the potential implications on democratic societies.

Author Paul Wood, is currently a professor specialized in forest resource management at the University of British Columbia. He presents a unique perspective, addressing how land-use decision making is carried out within the forestry sector. His findings are also applicable to promoting greater environmental well-being. Woods has a background in biology, philosophy, and political theory; this is evident with the thorough and coherent arguments presented. For many years Wood served as a conservation policy consultant for the province of British Columbia and multiple timber-firms. The varied experience and academic background is reflected in the writing style. The tone of the book adds great significance of the greater societal implications of biodiversity loss – adding a sense of urgency to the issue.

Wood explores the correlation of population growth patterns and environmental damages, mainly loss of biodiversity. The beginning line grabs reader’s attention; “biodiversity loss is one of the greatest threats to human tenure on Earth.” With the threat of extinction looming the readers mind’s Wood explains how biodiversity is an essential biological condition for life. The evidence provides substantial basis for the “priority-of-diversity” principles, where “in public land-use decisions, the conservation of biological diversity must take priority over the public interest.” As the main argument defended the author examines the possibility of implementing such a principle in a democratic society. Written in 2000, this book supplies relevant information for current public debate over climate-change and global warming. Wood is able to integrate the variety of issues at hand, suggesting a reevaluation of society’s impact on the natural environment.

Drawing from current and historical evidence Wood instills a full understanding of our society’s land-use problem. Specifically, the alteration, fragmentation, and destruction of the natural environment with the means of obtaining valuable resources (or commodities) have been the primary driver in loss of biodiversity. Wood is careful to distinguish that biodiversity is not a resource in itself, rather a necessary condition for perpetuation of life on Earth. Framing the issue from economic and political perspectives Wood argues biodiversity loss carries implications for constitutional limitations on legislative and executive powers within government. Illustrating his idea with examples from public forest land-use Wood suggests a tyranny of the majority is created, as current decision making models do not account for societal interests. The point is well argued, developed through an organized analysis of the practical reasoning society uses towards nature, and how this impacts land-use decisions. The first section is dedicated to delineating the scope and nature of his argument.

The author provides a substantial outline of the current model for land-use decision making used in Canada. In particular to three principles guiding land-use: utility maximization, economic efficiency, and consensus among stakeholders. Wood provides adequate reasoning of the shortcomings of these approaches, concluding none ensure the protection of biodiversity. Since these models are based on utilitarian concepts, where action should be based on the greatest good for the greatest number of people, Wood reveals the long-term considerations of biodiversity conservation. The present generation is unable to place value on biodiversity for future generations; therefore no framework exists to ensure biodiversity is conserved to a reasonable level. The importance of future generations is a principle assumption providing fundamental support to Wood’s argument; advocating an implicit obligation to our descendants. To achieve required sustainability levels Wood assumes constraint on the present generation’s interests. Evidence supporting these conclusions is based on political theories applicable in a liberal democracy.

It is only after great buildup that Wood finally brings together the entire argument in chapter six. The preceding chapters are primarily dedicated to the necessary background information, definitions, and equip the unfamiliar reader with the information required for independent critical analysis. Wood supports his priority of diversity principles theoretically examining:

- Mill’s Harm Principle;

- Rawl’s Two Principles of Justice;

- Dworkin’s Argument of Principle;

- Nozick’s Principle of Justice in Acquisition and Transfer;

- And Raz’s argument based on Autonomy.

Wood details the supporting arguments, summarized best as liberal theories which would consider biodiversity depleting acts as an illegitimate act of the state, and therefore must be limited. Each theory supports principles of: political morality preserving the permanent interests of man; equal concern and respect for each citizen, Wood includes future generations; and the function of government to protect individual autonomy.

The fundamental problem with Wood’s analysis is the limited theoretical scope of the issue. Early on he limits the discussion’s applicability to constitutional democracies. What this does is limit the magnitude of global-relevance, as not all nations are democratic nor support a constitution. The first half of the book offers insight to the need for full-scale implementation of the priority of diversity principle – subsequently Wood backs down in later chapters. The discussion becomes limited to showcasing how liberal constitutional democracies are to implement his idealistic initiatives. Considering his experience, more consideration should have been paid to alternative political theories and their respective institutions of implementing necessary change.

By limiting his discussion to forestry land-use decision making within Canada I believe Wood fails to encompass the broader context of the situation. From a reader’s perspective, the book did not offer insight for those interested in challenges faced throughout Europe, Asia, Oceana, and Africa. The deforestation of the most bio-diverse regions known to man – the rainforests of South America did not receive mention – this demonstrates the author’ lack of global perspective. Although the author makes note of the self-imposed limitations due to manageability, at least a brief overview of major threats, and the greater international consequences of region-specific to biodiversity levels. Wood played to his research competencies, in turn delivering an insightful exploration of his argument.

The organization of Biodiversity and Democracy represents a lack of focus on overall structure and presentation. The introduction was brimmed with information – outlining the path for which the argument will unfold along. As a reader, I felt inundated with information from the first two chapters – and did not grasp the book’s thesis. It did not help that the author did not write a summary chapter. Although the actual need for one is debatable as the author frequently concludes along the way, and relies on overzealous forecasting throughout. Wood chose to briefly summarize in the remaining pages of the last chapter. This approach limited the final impact of Wood’s message to the reader. Overall, once the reader adjusts to Wood’s style, and carefully examining the table of contents, the argument becomes much easier to follow. There are hints to the book being a “first volume” – offering the enticement of more information in the future.

The most compelling reason to read Biodiversity and Democracy would be for the logical analysis of biodiversity as a political issue. Wood is able to capture the attention of uninformed readers. The book is written to cater to the academic community, where much of the discussion involves set-up and background for principle argument. Many sections could have benefited from a thorough editing process – by omitting or conjoining ideas. This would limit the repetitive nature, shortening the length, and providing a clear, concise explanation of his view. However, through his detail, Wood provides substantial evidence of issues biodiversity poses to democracy. Specifically stating that loss to biodiversity risks the democratic sovereignty of individual citizens. Wood suggests the need for constitutional change and judicial review. The recommendations represent possible solutions to problems plaguing the North American democratic model. This is extremely positive as current public debate seems to be stuck in “analysis paralysis” – exercising extreme conservatism even failing to act.

The role of corporations in biodiversity loss was not examined thoroughly. This is odd give the role of corporation in accelerated biodiversity losses. Instead much attention was given to the decision-making model enabling corporations to act. Interestingly enough – Wood refers to an invisible hand process which is responsible for losses in biodiversity. Drawing on Adam Smith’s interpretation of economic market forces, and Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection – both provide evidence of forces out of human control. Wood likens the loss in biodiversity to an invisible hand, with noticeable consequences: species losses, and habitat degradation. Ultimately, this can be linked back to Smith’s economic laws – specifically: specialization, suggesting homogenization increases productivity. Such assumptions are fundamentally against the principles of preservation of biodiversity. Since business has such an influential role in policy decisions more attention should have been given to their actions and responsibilities to ensure biodiversity. This is especially true as corporations are legally considered individuals existing within society – one could presuppose the future of corporations is also contingent on biodiversity preservation. Hopefully in future volumes Wood will address corporate influence, and the need for greater corporate social responsibility.

Biodiversity and Democracy is an excellent book. Although I feel limited in personal knowledge of the subject matter it comes as no surprise – especially considering the term ‘biodiversity’ was first recognized in 1985. This represents the relative importance of the issue gaining momentum. Paul Wood demonstrated his unique knowledge of the subject, giving industry-specific examples, and providing plausible solutions for the future. What I found particularly interesting was the importance Wood placed on inter-generational distribution of justice. Combined with the truly interdisciplinary nature of the subject – Wood has tackled an issue that transcends time and current society. His exploration of the issue provides basis for further discussion on action-based results. Since this book was published public opinion has become much more sympathetic to the plights of nature. The explosion of independent movie releases, and literature now available addresses an even wider need for collective understanding and action. The environment is in the forefront of public eye. For those opposed to the priority-of-biodiversity principle – it may be difficult to refute the rights of future generations, and those of natural species. However considering the fact that corporations have been granted patents on genetically modified organisms indicates decision makers’ reluctance to address these issues.

To what extent should society place limitations on democratic rights to ensure biodiversity? Who will be negatively impacted by pursuing such objectives? How can we decide as a society and, more importantly, as a world community what the best course of action is? What is the balance of the natural world and human harmony? As human population levels continue to increase and material acquisition leads societal behaviour, our civilization fill have to come to terms. If our actions continue with past performance the conditions provided for forthcoming generations will continue to degenerate until little is left for Generation X – whoever they are….

This review was written by Curtis Goodman in February 2008.

—/