But as dramatic as these numbers are, will PAGE accomplish anything? The U.N. has a reputation for studying problems as a substitute for doing something about them. Its agencies churn out paper the way ragweed produces pollen, and most U.N. studies quickly disappear into file-cabinet oblivion in the offices of other paper shufflers. Moreover, after decades of conferences on environment and sustainable development, the natural response to such an assessment is, "Hasn't someone already done this?"
No, nothing this sweeping. PAGE brought together 175 scientists from many disciplines and nations. They drew upon, reanalyzed and integrated the data collected in roughly 100 prior assessments and studies of various ecosystems and regions. They also pored over new findings collected through satellite imaging and other forms of remote sensing. The purpose was to identify gaps in information, target critical areas deserving attention and pinpoint likely trouble spots in the future.
The results provide an overwhelming case for proceeding with the full-scale assessment next year. Equally important, PAGE is the first time a critical mass of scientists from different disciplines has rallied around the crisis in the planet's ecosystems. Notes Calestous Juma of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government: "If you look at issues like ozone depletion and climate change, there was progress because different scientists pulled together in assessments. That hasn't happened until now in biological systems."
NATURE THE PRODUCER
What really distinguishes PAGE is its approach. It's significant that two of the sponsoring agencies—the U.N. Development Program and the World Bank—deal primarily with economic development. Their participation acknowledges an inescapable fact: economies cannot remain forever healthy in an unhealthy environment. PAGE looks at the natural world in a new way: not just as a beautiful place that should be preserved for aesthetic or moral reasons but also as an economic asset that delivers irreplaceable goods and services. Ecosystems temper climate, purify and store water, recycle wastes, produce food and support all the other things that make Earth a friendly oasis in a stark and lonely universe. Despite the universally acknowledged importance of these life-creating natural networks, until now no organization has undertaken a global assessment of Earth's capacity to continue delivering goods and services.
PAGE starkly concludes that our planet's capacity is beginning to diminish, threatening our economic well-being and ultimately our survival. It's not possible to go through the report's maps, charts, graphs and case studies without wondering, How did we let things get to this point?
The answer lies in a paradox. No one argues that life on Earth would be possible without ecosystems, but the entire march of human progress has occurred against a backdrop of landscapes transformed from their natural state to suit the needs of agriculture and industry. Various societies have degraded huge areas without suffering dire consequences. In the U.S., pioneers plowed up almost the entire prairie on the nation's way to becoming an agricultural and economic colossus, but America lost what may have been the greatest concentration of animal life on the planet. Britain, Japan, Korea and Thailand are among the societies that prospered even as they converted their original natural systems into farms and industrial parks, diverted and despoiled their rivers and re-engineered their coasts.
The world needs ecosystems, but apparently not every ecosystem, everywhere. The genius of the market economy is that it enables a nation to buy from other places or re-create through technology some of the benefits once derived from the local habitat. The genius of nature is that ecosystems can absorb shocks and sustain damage and still rebound.
OUTSTRIPPING CAPACITY
One reason governments have been slow to respond to the environmental crisis is that Earth is still churning out plenty of goods—enough fiber, grain and fish to support 6 billion people. Many are malnourished, of course, but that's primarily a matter of bad distribution. A closer look at the trends, though, is disturbing. PAGE points out that there is a difference between current production and capacity, which is the amount of grain or fish the globe can produce indefinitely. Fishing fleets, the report says, are 40% larger than the ocean can sustain. At that rate, more fisheries are bound to collapse, as did the North Atlantic cod grounds. We're borrowing heavily from our children's future.
