Content uploaded by Joseph R Bennett
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joseph R Bennett on Jan 13, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 342 25 OCTOBER 2013 425
POLICYFORUM
Despite a global political commit-
ment to reduce biodiversity loss by
2010 through the 2002 Convention
on Biological Diversity, declines are accel-
erating and threats are increasing ( 1). Major
threats to biodiversity are habitat loss, inva-
sion by exotic species and pathogens, and cli-
mate change, all principally driven by human
activities. Although fossil fuel (FF) extrac-
tion has traditionally been seen as a tempo-
rary and spatially limited perturbation to eco-
systems ( 2), even local or limited biodiversity
loss can have large cascade effects on eco-
system function and productivity. We explore
the overlap between regions of high marine
and terrestrial biodiversity and FF reserves
to identify regions at particular risk of eco-
system destruction and biodiversity loss from
exposure to FF extraction.
Consumption of FF (oil, natural gas, and
coal) grew from 26,200 million barrels of oil
equivalent (MBOE) in 1965 to 80,300 MBOE
in 2012 ( 3). By 2035, oil demand is projected
to increase by over 30%, natural gas by 53%,
and coal by 50% ( 4). It is often assumed that
legally mandated restoration after extraction
(which includes drilling and all forms of min-
ing) will return an area to close to its predis-
turbance state ( 2). Extraction activities have
therefore been considered trivial disruptors
of natural systems in comparison with other
human activities, such as agricultural land
clearing ( 5).
Ecosystem disturbance and degrada-
tion resulting from direct or indirect effects
of extraction, however, have profound and
enduring impacts on systems at wider spatial
scales ( 6). Direct effects include local habi-
tat destruction and fragmentation, visual and
noise disturbance, and pollution ( 7). Indirect
effects can extend many kilometers from the
extraction source and include human expan-
sion into previously wild areas, introduction
of invasive species and pathogens, soil ero-
sion, water pollution, and illegal hunting ( 7).
Combined, these factors lead to population
declines and changes in community compo-
sition ( 8). Gas and oil transportation can also
be environmentally damaging, particularly
in countries with weak governance, and can
lead to deforestation, water contamination,
and soil erosion ( 9). Spills in marine environ-
ments can have severe environmental impacts
over wide areas ( 10). However, the main
impact of FF extraction on biodiversity may
be through facilitating other threats, such as
deforestation driven by road construction.
In the future, FF will be increasingly
Biodiversity Risks from Fossil Fuel
Extraction
CONSERVATION
N. Butt,
1
* H. L. Beyer,
1 J. R. Bennett,
1 D. Biggs,
1 R. Maggini,
1 M. Mills,
2 A. R. Renwick,
1
L. M. Seabrook,1,3 H. P. Possingham 1
The overlapping of biodiverse areas and
fossil fuel reserves indicates high-risk regions.
Petroleum reserve
regions
Coal deposit
regions Species richness Marine Terrestrial
Threatened species
286
0
1500
0
348
0
Distribution of FF reserves and species biodiversity. Large map refl ects ter-
restrial species richness (number of species per ecoregion). (Insets) Two regions
where many threatened terrestrial and marine species may be affected by FF
extraction (background map depicts point estimate counts of threatened spe-
cies ranges at the center of each 0.1° grid cell). Limitations in available data
on FF reserves and extraction (e.g., coal reserves in Europe and India) suggest
our analyses may underestimate the extent of overlap between FF reserves and
regions of high biodiversity. See SM for details.
*Corresponding author. n.butt@uq.edu.au
1Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Envi-
ronmental Decisions, School of Biological Sciences, The
University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, 4072,
Australia. 2Global Change Institute, The University of
Queensland, St. Lucia, 4072, Australia. 3School of Geog-
raphy, Planning and Environmental Management, The Uni-
versity of Queensland, St. Lucia, 4072, Australia.
Published by AAAS
on October 27, 2013www.sciencemag.orgDownloaded from on October 27, 2013www.sciencemag.orgDownloaded from
25 OCTOBER 2013 VOL 342 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org
426
POLICYFORUM
extracted from more remote and previously
undisturbed areas. Unconventional sources,
such as coal seam gas and shale oil, will
threaten currently undeveloped regions that
are biodiverse and represent important cen-
ters of endemism ( 8). Furthermore, the corpo-
rations of the FF extraction industry are eco-
nomically and politically powerful, whereas
many countries in areas of high biodiversity
risk under FF exploration are characterized
by weak governance and poor implementa-
tion of environmental regulations.
Areas at Greatest Risk
We suggest that northern South America and
the western Pacifi c Ocean are at particular
risk [(see the fi rst fi gure); see supplementary
materials (SM)]. The Western Amazon is one
of the most biodiverse regions of the planet
and contains large reserves of oil and gas
( 11). Potential impacts from FF extraction in
this region include deforestation, contami-
nation, and wastewater discharge. Increased
accessibility to previously remote areas via
oil industry roads and pipeline routes is one
of the primary causes of habitat fragmenta-
tion and facilitates further logging, hunting,
and deforestation ( 11).
The Coral Triangle in the western Pacifi c
Ocean is one of the most biodiverse marine
areas of the world, containing 76% of the
world’s coral species and 37% of the world’s
coral reef fi sh species ( 12). In Papua New
Guinea, terrestrial FF development will
likely be accompanied by maritime extrac-
tion and transport of FF, posing increasing
risk to globally important
mangroves ( 13) and possi-
bly compounding existing
threats to coral reefs ( 14). An
oil well failure analogous to
the Deepwater Horizon spill
or a tanker spill comparable
to that of the Exxon Valdez
could have devastating con-
sequences for biodiversity in
the Gulf of Papua.
Utilizing available data,
we explored the spatial coin-
cidence of terrestrial spe-
cies richness with petroleum
reserves (see the second fi g-
ure). Extraction and pro-
cessing costs and the size
and quality of reserves may
strongly infl uence the prior-
itization of different regions
for exploitation. In principle,
however, jurisdictions with
large reserves and high bio-
diversity (e.g., Bolivia, Ven-
ezuela, Malaysia, and Borneo) are of particu-
lar concern. Developments in these countries
are likely to cover a greater spatial extent and
so pose threats to numerous species. Regions
with large petroleum deposits but low species
richness, such as the North Sea, are expected
to experience ecosystem degradation, but as
species richness is low, the net impact on bio-
diversity may be relatively small.
Policy Implications and Solutions
Our results highlight opportunities where
international FF extraction corporations
and conservation organizations can have
important impacts on biodiversity protec-
tion. We propose that industry regulation,
monitoring, and conservation should be
targeted where FF reserves and regions of
high biodiversity overlap. We suggest that,
in general, regions or countries in the high-
risk areas with weak governance and low
levels of environmental protection may not
attract or allow international scrutiny, and
so environmental damage caused in these
areas may remain both undetected and unad-
dressed ( 15). There is a risk, therefore, of
noncompliance with the best environmental
and safety practices. By contrast, where high
environmental standards are enforced, such
as the construction of the 3150-km Gasbol
pipeline in Brazil and Boliva, impacts on
biodiversity can be minimized ( 16).
Monitoring biodiversity and the environ-
ment is crucial for effective implementation
of both industry regulations and conservation
management. It is critical that environmen-
tal organizations play an active role in ensur-
ing that FF extraction takes place according
to best practices and, ideally, avoids areas of
high biodiversity and that trade-offs between
biodiversity and development are assessed
critically ( 17). Greater international collab-
oration between governments, FF extraction
corporations, research bodies, and nongov-
ernmental organizations is needed.
With increasing global demand for
energy, the location, extent, and methods of
extraction are changing rapidly, but the effect
on biodiversity of these changes is largely
unknown. We speculate—on the basis of
the best available, but incomplete, data—
that northern South America and the west-
ern Pacifi c Ocean are two critical regions at
risk from increasing FF development. Thus
far, there has been little research into poten-
tial mitigation measures ( 8). Recognition of
the direct and indirect threats to biodiversity
from FF extraction in these regions, and of
their complex interactions, is essential in the
establishment of suitable norms and pro-
cesses that can guide development to mini-
mize environmental damage.
References and Notes
1. S. H. M. Butchart et al., Science 328, 1164 (2010).
2. M. C. Ruiz-Jaen, T. M. Aide, Restor. Ecol. 13, 569 (2005).
3. BP, Statistical Review of World Energy (BP, London,
2013); www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/
statistical-review-of-world-energy-2013.html.
4. Institute for Energy Research, Energy Information
Association Forecast, www.instituteforenergyresearch.
org/2011/09/22/eia-forecast-world-energy-led-by-china-
to-grow-53-percent-by-2035/
5. R. H. Cristescu, C. Frère, P. B. Banks, Biol. Conserv. 149,
60 (2012).
6. IUCN, ICMM, Integrating Mining and Biodiversity Con-
servation: Case Studies from Around the World (IUCN,
Gland, Cambridge, ICMM, London, 2004).
7. F. G. Bell, L. J. Donnelly, Mining and its Impact on the
Environment (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2006).
8. J. M. Northrup, G. Wittemyer, Ecol. Lett. 16, 112 (2013).
9. D. O’Rourke, S. Connolly, Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 28,
587 (2003).
10. P. F. Kingston, Spill Sci. Technol. Bull. 7, 53 (2002).
11. M. Finer, C. N. Jenkins, S. L. Pimm, B. Keane, C. Ross,
PLoS ONE 3, e2932 (2008).
12. World Wildlife Fund, http://wwf.panda.org
13. M. Lewis, R. Pryor, L. Wilking, Environ. Pollut. 159, 2328
(2011).
14. H. M. Guzmán, K. A. Burns, J. B. C. Jackson, Mar. Ecol.
Prog. Ser. 105, 231 (1994).
15. P. G. Fredriksson, J. Svensson, J. Public Econ. 87, 1383
(2003).
16. J. D. Quintero, A. Mathur, Conserv. Biol. 25, 1121
(2011).
17. P. M. Pedroni et al., J. Appl. Ecol. 50, 539 (2013).
Acknowledgments: This research was conducted with sup-
port from the Australian Research Council. We are grateful for
comments from P. Baruya (International Energy Agency) and
C. Aldridge (U.S. Geological Survey).
10.1126/science.1237261
Supplementary Materials
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/425/suppl/DC1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Future petroleum (log(MBOE))
Maximum species richness (number of species in ecoregion)
Malaysia, Borneo
No rth Sea
Venezuela
Thailand, Burma
North Burma Senegal
Peru, Columbia Bolivia, Paraguay
Canada (NW)
G e r m a ny
Norwegian Sea
Kazakhstan (W)
Mexico
China (N)
Ecuador
Niger Delta
Ecoregional species richness and petroleum reserves. Quadrants
determined by median values for petroleum and species richness. Exam-
ples of ecoregions within our identifi ed areas of biodiversity concern
include Bolivia, Venezuela, Malaysia, and Borneo. See SM for details.
Published by AAAS
