THE 'FUTURE OF CONSERVATION' DEBATE: DEFENDING ECOCENTRISM AND THE 'NATURE NEEDS HALF' MOVEMENT

Increasing human population interacts with local and global environments to deplete biodiversity and resources humans depend on, thus challenging societal values centered on growth and relying on technology to mitigate environmental stress. Although the need to address the environmental crisis, central to conservation science, generated greener versions of the growth paradigm, we need fundamental shifts in values that ensure transition from a growth-centered society to one acknowledging biophysical limits and centered on human well-being and biodiversity conservation. We discuss the role conservation science can play in this transformation, which poses ethical challenges and obstacles. We analyze how conservation and economics can achieve better consonance, the extent to which technology should be part of the solution, and difficulties the “new conservation science” has generated. An expanded ambition for conservation science should reconcile day-to-day action within the current context with uncompromising, explicit advocacy for radical transitions in core attitudes and processes that govern our interactions with the biosphere. A widening of its focus to understand better the interconnectedness between human well-being and acknowledgment of the limits of an ecologically functional and diverse planet will need to integrate ecological and social sciences better. Although ecology can highlight limits to growth and consequences of ignoring them, social sciences are necessary to diagnose societal mechanisms at work, how to correct them, and potential drivers of social change.

2001

A generalized demand for public decision processes to be open, integrative, and adaptive is increasingly evident in the environmental debate. In biological conservation, however, as in most other environmental controversies, we continue to find that our basic nature (evolutionary and cultural) generally predisposes us to exclude and confront one another in words or deeds, sometimes violently. In this essay we look at how differences in perspectives, how we deal with differences in perspectives, and how we deal with each other as people may work against broad democratic participation and the search for common ground. We argue that widely-invoked dichotomous classifications of perspectives such as the “anthropocentric vs. biocentric” characterization can be an obstacle to finding the common ground, because they tend to be rigid, exclusive, and confrontational in nature. The conditioning factors which underlie the habitual use of such characterizations include the “we vs. they” phenome...

Kemp, J. "Practical Ethics v2.0", in Bracker, A., Richmond, A., eds., 'Conservation: Principles, Dilemmas, and Uncomfortable Truths', Oxford: Elsevier, September 2009 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Conservation-Principles-Dilemmas-Uncomfortable-Truths/dp/0750682019 Conservation's codes of ethics can only be successfully applied in a closed system and, as with many human agencies, conservation generally operates to a lesser or greater degree in open-ended systems, then all conservation actions are bound to fail when measured against any one version of the ethical codes of conservation. This chapter considers the execution of ethical behaviour in both present and future settings with the offer of a beginning to the resolution of this inherent contradiction.

Nature Sustainability, 2019

Biodiversity is being lost at an unprecedented rate, making the conservation movement of critical importance for life on Earth. However, recent debates over the future of conservation have been polarised, acrimonious and dominated by an unrepresentative demographic group. The views of the wider global conservation community on fundamental questions regarding what, why and how to conserve are unknown. Here we characterise the views of 9,264 conservationists from 149 countries, identifying specific areas of consensus and disagreement, and three independent dimensions of conservation thinking. The first two dimensions ('people-centred conservation' and 'science-led ecocentrism') have widespread support, whereas 'conservation through capitalism' is more contentious. While conservationists' views on these three dimensions do not fall into distinct clusters, there are clear relationships between dimension scores and respondents' gender, age, educational background, career stage and continent of nationality. Future debates and policy processes should focus on the most contentious issues, and do more to include the perspectives of under-represented groups in conservation who may not share the views of those in more powerful positions. Main text Conservation is at a crossroads. Biodiversity loss is widely recognised as having serious consequences, but despite decades of effort in policy and site specific interventions, extinction rates remain high 1,2. The Convention on Biological Diversity 2010 goal to achieve "a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss" was not achieved, and there is no indication that the CBD Aichi targets for 2020 will be met 3. Against this backdrop, negotiations are underway for the post 2020 Biodiversity Framework of the CBD, which will set the global conservation agenda for at least a decade to come. There is widespread agreement that conservation needs to be more bold and ambitious, and to find more effective implementation measures 4,5. However, setting the future direction of conservation is hampered by the existence of various competing proposals which diverge on fundamental questions about why, what and how to conserve 4,6-9. Two positions in particular have been prominent in recent debates. Proponents of 'new conservation' argue for protecting biodiversity because of its importance to people, and emphasise partnerships with corporations, the natural capital approach, and the use of market-based tools such as payments for ecosystem services 6,10,11. Meanwhile advocates of 'traditional conservation' reject these views, arguing instead for the protection of nature for its own sake and emphasising state-based protected areas and regulation 7,12,13. This latter position is associated with calls for the radical expansion of protected area coverage targets in the post 2020 CBD framework to at least 50% of the terrestrial and marine realms 5,8,9. The 'new conservation' debate has dominated conservation thinking for several years, creating the impression of a stark choice to be made about the future of conservation. However, the debate has been critiqued in various ways. First, for recasting as 'new' what are in fact long-standing disagreements in conservation 11,14,15 over underlying rationales (such as ecocentrism and anthropocentrism) 16,17 , the role of market based approaches and economic valuation 18,19 , and the relationship between conservation and development 14,20. Second, for falsely suggesting there are only two perspectives, leaving out important alternative views on conservation, such as a 'critical social science' view which favours conservation for the benefit of people but disagrees with the use of market based approaches 4,21,22. Third, for under-representing the diversity of voices in the wider conservation community, because the main protagonists of the 'new conservation' debate are from an unrepresentative demographic group of North Americans who hold senior positions 23. Fourth, for being conducted in an excessively acrimonious and hostile tone 24,25. Addressing these critiques and moving the debate forwards requires empirical evidence on the views of the wider conservation community. However, at present these views remain unknown, beyond studies of specific issues such as coexistence with carnivores 26. Here, we report the findings of an online survey of 9,264 conservation practitioners and academics from 149 countries (Supplementary Figure 1). This is the largest published survey of the professional conservation community, responding directly to calls for conservationists to carefully identify their views and values, and to express them explicitly 14,27. Respondents indicated their level of agreement with 38 Likert items that were designed to assess their views on the issues raised within the new conservation debate, such as the underlying rationales for conservation, how goals should be set and the appropriateness of various tools to achieve those goals (Figure 1; see Methods for details). Respondents also provided information on their gender, age, educational background, career stage and continent of nationality (Supplementary Table 1). The survey was distributed via relevant listservs and through social media channels, targeted to encompass a range of ages and seniority (e.g. postgraduate and early career lists), disciplines (e.g. conservation social science, ecology specialist lists) and geographical locations (continent and country specific lists). The survey was then circulated organically amongst networks of conservation professionals and through social media such as Twitter and Facebook. Areas of consensus and polarization We found high levels of consensus among our respondents on multiple survey items, but also important areas with high levels of polarization (Figure 1; Supplementary Figure 2). As might be expected, the strongest consensus was in agreement that the maintenance of biodiversity and ecosystem processes should be goals of conservation.

Conservation should benefit ecosystems, nonhuman organisms, and current and future human beings. Nevertheless, tension among these goals engenders potential ethical conflicts: conservationists' true motivations may differ from the justifications they offer for their activities, and conservation projects have the potential to disempower and oppress people. We reviewed the promise and deficiencies of integrating social, economic, and biological concerns into conservation, focusing on research in ecosystem services and efforts in community-based conservation. Despite much progress, neither paradigm provides a silver bullet for conservation's most pressing problems, and both require additional thought and modification to become maximally effective. We conclude that the following strategies are needed to make conservation more effective in our human-dominated world. (1) Conservation research needs to integrate with social scholarship in a more sophisticated manner (2) Conservation must be informed by a detailed understanding of the spatial, temporal, and social distributions of costs and benefits of conservation efforts. Strategies should reflect this understanding, particularly by equitably distributing conservation's costs. (3) We must better acknowledge the social concerns that accompany biodiversity conservation; accordingly, sometimes we must argue for conservation for biodiversity's sake, not for its direct human benefits.

Handbook of Engaged Sustainability, 2017

Social scientists of conservation typically address sources of legitimacy of conservation policies in relation to local communities’ or indigenous land rights, highlighting social inequality and environmental injustice. This chapter reflects on the underlying ethics of environmental justice in order to differentiate between various motivations of conservation and its critique. Conservation is discussed against the backdrop of two main ethical standpoints: preservation of natural resources for human use and protection of nature for its own sake. These motivations will be examined highlighting mainstream conservation and alternative deep ecology environmentalism. Based on this examination, this chapter untangles concerns with social and ecological justice in order to determine how environmental and human values overlap, conflict, and where the opportunity for reconciliation lies, building bridges between supporters of social justice and conservation.

Conservation

Anthropocentrism in Western (modern industrial) society is dominant, goes back hundreds of years, and can rightly be called ‘hubris’. It removes almost all moral standing from the nonhuman world, seeing it purely as a resource. Here, we discuss the troubling components of anthropocentrism: worldview and ethics; dualisms, valuation and values; a psychology of fear and denial; and the idea of philosophical ‘ownership’. We also question whether it is a truly practical (or ethical) approach. We then discuss three troubling examples of anthropocentrism in conservation: ‘new’ conservation; ecosystem services; and the IPBES values assessment. We conclude that anthropocentrism is fuelling the environmental crisis and accelerating extinction, and urge academia to speak out instead for ecocentrism.

In Search of Moral Equilibrium and Wisdom, 2021

Sustainable practices such as conservation, protected species, renewable energies, green technologies, reforestation, eco-friendly, and fair treatments of non-human species, among others, have dominated research and debates in environmental ethics. The preceding approaches seek to address various environmental concerns that range from deforestation, climate change, global warming, drought, mining, famine, overpopulation, over-fishing, oil drilling, pollution, ozone depletion, green gases, carbon emission, and nuclear waste. In addition to discussing those concerns, this chapter will highlight various perspectives on environmental ethics, which feature biocentrism, utilitarianism, interdependence between humans and nature, and shared substance with nature. Overall, as the title suggests, the tensions in discourses on environmental ethics tend to, more often than not, revolve around human needs and the care of nature and other living organisms. Notably, answers to questions about human responsibilities and obligation toward non-human species and the environment have been as contested as they are divergent.

Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal

The conservation-versus-human rights debate typically positions ecologists and conservationists against social scientists and human rights activists (Rangarajan and Shahabuddin 2010). I argue that recent research in the natural and social sciences invites us to revisit entrenched mythologies, canons, and dogmas on both sides. The moral imperative of biodiversity conservation and protection of endangered species resonates with most people, as does the importance of protecting the rights of vulnerable people. To understand the spaces of agreement and dissent, it is important to disentangle the twin moral imperatives of conservation and social justice from the canons and dogmas informing conservation, actual conservation strategies, and the outcomes for humans and non-human species. The core premise of protected areas-based conservation is that human presence in 'pristine' or 'wilderness' areas is detrimental to biodiversity (Karanth 2018). This canon of human disturbance has underpinned the creation of 'inviolate' protected areas as the preferred strategy for biodiversity conservation worldwide, and also underlies optional strategies like participatory conservation, 'sustainable landscapes' (Karanth 2018), as well as the 'land-sparing' arguments of more recent vintage (Phalan et al. 2011). The rate of creation of protected areas has accelerated in the twentyfirst century as part of a global consensus under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD).

Biological Conservation, 2023

In this article we analyse Michael E. Soulé's normative postulates in 'What Is Conservation Biology?' In the first section, we provide an exegetical reading of the normative postulates and demonstrate that they subordinate all sources of value to biodiversity. We question this subordinating logic because it permits, we argue, the enactment of morally wrongful policies. In the second section, we demonstrate that biodiversity and the integrity of ecosystems depend on an idealized conception of ecological communities that is morally arbitrary. Both, subordinating all sources of value to biodiversity, and this morally arbitrary conception of ecological communities leads us to conclude that protecting biodiversity ought not to be the most fundamental normative postulate of conservation biology. To end, we propose a pluralist ethic that foregrounds: selfdetermination, community, and social relationships; rejects human dominion over animals; and emphasizes protective, preventive and non-harmful interventions.