Forests are often frontiers, and like all frontiers, they are sites of dynamic social, ecological, political and economic changes. Such dynamism involves constantly changing advantages and disadvantages to different groups of people, which not surprisingly can lead to armed conflict, and all too frequently to war. Many governments have contributed to conflict, however inadvertently, by nationalizing their forests, so that traditional forest inhabitants have been disenfranchised while national governments sell the rights to trees in order to earn foreign exchange. Biodiversity-rich tropical forests in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Indochina, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Central and West Africa, the Amazon, Colombia, Central America and New Caledonia have all been the sites of armed conflict in recent years, sometimes involving international forces. Forests have sometimes been part of the cause of conflict (as in Myanmar and Sierra Leone) but more often victims of it. Violent conflicts in temperate areas also typically involve forests as shelters for both civilians and combatants, as in the Balkans. While these conflicts have frequently, even invariably, caused negative impacts on biodiversity, peace can be even worse, as it enables forest exploitation to operate with impunity. Because many of the remaining forests are along international borders, international cooperation is required for their conservation. As one response, the concept of international “Peace Parks” is being promoted in many parts of the world as a way of linking biodiversity conservation with national security. The Convention on Biological Diversity, which entered into force at the end of 1993 and now has 187 State Parties, offers a useful framework for such cooperation.

Forest certification provides a means by which producers who meet stringent sustainable forestry standards can identify their products in the marketplace, allowing them to potentially receive greater market access and higher prices for their products. An examination of the ways in which certification may contribute to biodiversity conservation leads to the following conclusions: 1) the process of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)-certification generates improvements to management with respect to the value of managed forests for biodiversity. 2) Current incentives are not sufficient to attract the majority of producers to seek certification, particularly in tropical countries where the costs of improving management to meet FSC guidelines are significantly greater than any market benefits they may receive; available incentives are even less capable of convincing forest owners to retain forest cover and produce certified timber on a sustainable basis, rather than deforesting their lands for timber and agriculture. 3) At present, current volumes of certified forest products are insufficient to reduce demand to log high conservation value forests. If FSC certification is to make greater inroads, particularly in tropical countries, significant investments will be needed both to increase the benefits and reduce the costs of certification. Conservation investors will need to carefully consider the biodiversity benefits that will be generated from such investments, versus the benefits generated from investing in more traditional approaches to biodiversity conservation.

In the last 15 years new research findings have radically reshaped our understanding of human effects on ocean ecosystems. Here I describe five major shifts in perspective that reveal our impacts to be more severe and persistent than previously appreciated. Firstly, scientists have delved deep into the past and found that the global expansion of European nations across the planet caused the large-scale loss of marine megafauna. In the past century, expansion of industrial scale fishing has continued the process, massively reducing the biomass of exploited species. Secondly, once depleted we are finding that populations rarely rebound rapidly, contrary to a widespread belief in greater resilience of marine compared to terrestrial species. Thirdly, marine ecosystems are being shifted into alternative states that are less desirable from the human perspective and may be stable. It could be difficult, or impossible in some cases, to reverse impacts once inflicted. Fourthly, marine species are at risk of extinction. Loss of shallow water marine habitats is proceeding as rapidly as on land, many species have small geographic ranges, and many possess life history characteristics that leave them highly susceptible to overexploitation. Finally, the deep sea is not beyond harm. Depletion of shallow water fisheries and technological advances are opening up the deep to exploitation and its collateral impacts. If we are to reverse these negative trends we must establish large-scale networks of marine reserves that are off limits to damaging activities and fishing. Such reserves would protect biodiversity, and recover and sustain the world's fisheries productivity.

Biological invasions by non-indigenous species (NIS) are widely recognized as a significant component of human-caused global environmental change. However, the standard programme of mapping distributions, predicting future ranges, modelling species spread, assessing impacts, developing management guidelines and screening species suffers from a number of serious limitations. NIS distribution maps can often be as misleading as they are instructive. Perceptions of the intensity, scale and rate of invasion are a function of mapping resolution, and the lack of common mapping standards prevents accurate comparative assessments. Coarse resolution data may overestimate the role of climate in the invasion process relative to other variables such as land use or human population density. Climate envelopes have therefore been widely used to predict species future ranges, but often overestimate potential distributions. Without an appropriate mechanistic understanding of the invasion process, correlative approaches may misinterpret the relative risks posed by different NIS. In addition, statistical models of invasion fail to encapsulate the complexity of human-mediated dispersal, which includes such diverse processes as transatlantic timber trade, horticultural fashion and the continuing expansion of road networks. Screening tools based on species traits, taxonomy and/or invasion history can sometimes result in high discrimination rates. Yet where the cost of false positives outweighs the risks from false negatives, a higher discriminatory power is required. Certain research outputs have perhaps been counterproductive in the war against invasive species. Studies have highlighted that only a tiny proportion of NIS are invasive, that most invasions occur in human dominated rather than pristine ecosystems, that indigenous and non-indigenous species are sufficiently similar that their impacts may not necessarily be different, and that there is evidence that introduced species augment rather than reduce species diversity. It is crucial to address these wider perceptions of the problem in order to mobilize the resources necessary for a global invasive species management programme.

Species-area relationships (SPARs) dictate a sea change in the strategies of biodiversity conservation. SPARs exist at three ecological scales: Sample-area SPARs (a larger area within a biogeographical province will tend to include more habitat types, and thus more species, than a smaller one), Archipelagic SPARs (the islands of an archipelago show SPARs that combine the habitat-sampling process with the problem of dispersal to an island), and Interprovincial SPARs (other things being equal, the speciation rates of larger biogeographical provinces are higher and their extinction rates are lower, leading to diversities in proportion to provincial area). SPARs are the products of steady-state dynamics in diversity, and such dynamics appears to have characterized the earth for most of the last 500 million years. As people reduce the area available to wild species, they impose a linear reduction of the earth's species diversity that will follow the largest of these scales, i.e. each 1% reduction of natural area will cost about 1% of steady-state diversity. Reserving small tracts of wild habitat can only delay these reductions. But we can stop most of them by redesigning anthropogenic habitats so that their use is compatible with use by a broad array of other species. That is reconciliation ecology. Many pilot projects, whether intentionally or inadvertently espousing reconciliation ecology, are demonstrating that it can be done.

Many individuals and societies are no longer connected to the more-than-human world in such a way as to ensure a sustainable future. As such connection has diminished, environmental challenges have multiplied and influences for estrangement intensified. I review the importance of direct, intimate encounter with places and organisms on the attitudes of the young, as well as the significance of biophilia. The result of the loss of contact and subsequent alienation is the Extinction of Experience: an inexorable cycle of disconnection, apathy, and progressive depletion. I describe an effort to demonstrate this effect. Small, humble habitats, especially in urban settings, can be as important as big reserves in awakening biophilia. Biophobia, abetted by the loss of such habitats, the rise of the virtual in place of actual experience, economic inequalities, and overpopulation, further feeds the downward spiral of extinction and disaffection. The climate of global corporate growth that now prevails is inimical to sustainability, as is the current state of ecological illiteracy. Radical change is therefore necessary to address both economic disparity, in the direction of minimal ownership rather than maximum consumerism, and educational reform that places nature at the centre rather than the margin of the curriculum. I present a six-point programme, called Nature Matrix, for an alternative social and ethical paradigm. Rather than a pragmatic plan for the near future, Nature Matrix is a model for essential, incremental change, a dream whose eventual adoption may enhance chances for reconnection and for ecological survival itself: at present, a deeply uncertain prospect.

Discussions of sustainable use have become polarized. Welfarists oppose all use that involves killing animals. Among conservationists polarization arises in part from failure to distinguish between different ideas nestled under the umbrella term of ‘sustainable use’. These include direct use as an imperative or choice, the ideal of keeping any use within biologically sustainable limits, and use as a possible conservation strategy that can create positive incentives, which are key where land could otherwise be converted to biodiversity-unfriendly practices. People will continue to use wild living resources, which increasing human populations could further deplete. In response the conservation community can follow one of two approaches. On the one hand, it can try to stop use through the establishment of strictly protected areas and by enforcing legislation, although many would question the ethical position of imposing such an approach. On the other hand, it can work to introduce the wider management systems needed to deliver sustainable use and, if possible, incentive-driven conservation. Because most rural populations will continue using wild living resources in human-dominated landscapes, sustainable use and incentive-driven conservation should both be at the centre of the conservation agenda this century. Both species- and ecosystem-based management are likely to have a role in sustainable use. However, current enthusiasm for the ecosystem approach may throw up unexpected consequences, making the search for sustainability even more polarized. Nevertheless, direct use of species cannot provide sufficient incentives to ensure the continued delivery of ecosystem services, which need to be fully incorporated in the global accounting system.

The role of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Wetlands Convention, and the Barcelona Convention on the Mediterranean has grown increasingly important, in the context of conservation management, during the last decade as human impacts intensify and cross national boundaries more often. In resorting to MEAs it is important to maintain a clear focus on their opportunities and limitations. They are a means to resolve transboundary problems with neighbouring states and adopt harmonized approaches, they increasingly offer access to worldwide knowledge, tools and financial resources, and they can give conservation agencies a stronger mandate domestically. But they are specialized instruments focused on particular problems or sectors. The threats they address and the solutions they outline have to be evaluated in relation to overall environmental and socio-economic priorities. This entails linkages among different problems and sectors at various scales. Regional and ecosystem-level approaches are most appropriate for sorting out linkages and priorities. Extensive capacity building is needed at these levels to foster the requisite skills for integrated approaches. In addition, new mechanisms may be required at these levels to coordinate diverse specialized regimes. This does not require a monolithic, top-down approach but rather ongoing flexibility and responsiveness informed from the bottom up. We should take advantage of the new directions highlighted by the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, in 2002 and other recent international conferences to build these abilities into international governance. Conservation managers have an important role to play. By working nationally and internationally they can inform and influence the shift towards integrated and coordinated efforts, suggesting ways to accomplish this on a larger, international scale based on concrete experience in situ.

While conservation activities are underfunded almost everywhere, the gap between current expenditure and what is needed is particularly extreme in the tropics where threatened species and habitats are most concentrated. We examine how to bridge this funding gap. Firstly, we try to identify who in principle should pay, by comparing the spatial distribution of the costs and the benefits of tropical conservation. The immediate opportunity costs of conservation often exceed its more obvious, management-related costs, and are borne largely by local communities. Conversely, we argue that the greatest benefits of conservation derive from ecological services, and from option, existence, and bequest values; these are often widely dispersed and enjoyed in large part by wealthier national and global beneficiaries. We conclude that the gap in funding tropical conservation should be borne largely by national and especially global communities, who receive most benefit but currently pay least cost. In the second part of the paper we review recent developments in order to examine how in practice increased funding may be raised. There are many growing and novel sources of support: private philanthropy, premium pricing for biodiversity-related goods via certification schemes, and the development of entirely new markets for environmental services. Despite their potential, we conclude that the principal route for meeting the unmet costs of tropical conservation will have to be via governments, and will inevitably require the transfer of substantial resources from north to south. This will be enormously difficult, both politically and logistically, but without it we believe that much of what remains of tropical nature will be lost.

Fauna & Flora International (FFI) celebrates its centenary in 2003. It was founded as the Society for the Preservation of the Wild Fauna of the Empire (SPWFE) in London in 1903. This paper analyses the events, people, and debates behind its formation and early development. It discusses why the Society was formed, how it worked, and what its main concerns were. It considers the nature and success of the Society's work from 1903 to 1914 in influencing the British Colonial Office's policy on issues such as game reserves, hunting and wildlife clearance for tsetse control in Africa. The SPWFE drew together an elite group of colonial administrators, hunters and other experts on game in Africa, and was effective in lobbying the Colonial Office about preservation. Many of its concerns, and ideas about how to address them, are similar to those that are current today, a century after its establishment.