This article serves to introduce biodiversity professionals to contemporary environmental philosophy. It is a discipline that could play an important role in (re)shaping the objectives conservation organisations set for themselves. It deals with complex questions that cannot be disregarded if we aim for conservation to stand the test of time.

Lessons from history

Nature conservation in any of its forms can only be effective if there is consensus on what nature is, and how we want to conserve it. This seems no difficult job: most people we know would associate ‘true’ nature with concepts such as ‘pristine land’, ‘undisturbed areas’ or ‘wilderness’.

Similarly, the important Wilderness Act of 1964 (USA) considers wilderness ‘untrammelled by man’ and ‘where man is a visitor who does not remain’. Although such definitions speak to the imagination of lovers of nature, many critics now agree that they are ethnocentric. What was defined as ‘untrammelled by man’ in North America, had long been home to millions of indigenous North Americans. By excluding them from the definition applied to these lands, the removal of Native Americans from their homelands was further facilitated.

This might seem a merely historical argument, but unfortunately it is still relevant: practices like these continued, sad examples being the nomadic Penans in Malaysia and the African Masai tribes. It is highly ironic how some large Western conservation organisations fail to put a stop to the destruction of the remnants of biodiversity hotspots in industrialised Europe, but sometimes accuse various ‘primitive’ populations of being a threat to an endangered species in Third World countries. Fortunately, many other organisations have realised the importance of striking a balance between nature conservation and the rights of indigenous people.

Contemporary problems related to the definition of nature

Wilderness paradoxes still occur to this day. For example: conservation organisations often clear woodland, in order to restore the land to its ‘original state’. For example, in Belgium and the Netherlands, these are often heathland restoration projects. But what exactly is the ‘original state’ of the land? Heathland used to be abundant exactly because of the clearing of woodland in order to make room for agriculture. Thus, heathland is by definition nothing like wilderness. Many would rightly argue that making room for both woodlands and heathland benefits biodiversity. However, do we want to pursue higher biodiversity if it is not strictly natural?

Surely, we rather not have ourselves to be the ‘architects of nature’, establishing nature in a way linked to the highest possible biodiversity. Is leaving natural succession to swallow up a large number of heathlands a good alternative then? Only because that is how it would be without human intervention, we would risk the loss of species typical of these biotopes. This does not seem like a good idea either.Important as the concept is, we have to avoid biodiversity to become a dogma of nature conservation. It is not up to us to protect or restore the biodiversity of nature no matter what. It is up to us to prohibit or reverse excessive human impact upon nature: human impact that is often accompanied by the decline of biodiversity.

Reversing our past impacts on nature?

But even if we agree that we ought to reverse human impact, the question rises to what extent we should. Do we try to reverse the huge changes we have forced upon the land since the industrial evolution? Or do we go further back, and try to restore nature to the way it was before agriculture was widespread? This choice could imply the sacrifice of large areas of biodiverse heathland to natural succession. One might even argue that we should support the development of ‘de-extinction’ technologies? After all, animals like the woolly mammoth and sabre-toothed cats might have gone extinct due to human hunting activities.

This is one of only many difficult questions investigated in the field of environmental philosophy. It handles questions that can be complex and often have no unambiguous answer. Still, the ways in which we answer them shapes the practice of nature conservation.

–Merijn van den Bosch

Sources

Much of the content of ‘Lessons from history’ is found in:
-Callicott, J.B and Nelson, M.P., The Great New Wilderness Debate. Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1998, 697 p.
-Callicott, J.B and Nelson, M.P., The Wilderness Debate Rages On. Continuing the Great New Wilderness Debate. Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 2008, 723 p.

The post How our definition of nature shapes conservation efforts appeared first on Biodiversity Professionals.

Indigenous communities can play a pivotal role in the success of a conservation program. (Image courtesy of junglephotos.com)

However, many officially protected areas suffer from neglect, poor management, and corruption. This new research emphasizes the pivotal role local communities could play in addressing these shortcomings. From their analysis of villages in a region in Papua New Guinea, the researchers conclude: “…local monitoring contributes to effective protection and deters unregulated exploitation,” and that, “Clearly, local people are effective in protecting large areas in a relatively natural state.”

Giving local people a stake in the protection and restoration of their surrounding area could make all the difference, even to established conservation programs. The bottom-up approach can provide the community with much-needed jobs through ecotourism, sustainable harvesting and conservation area protection. In turn, local jobs help to prevent migration to urban areas, and lessen the pressure to engage in slash-and-burn agriculture or to sell out to the highest bidder, which may be a mining or lumber company, or big agriculture.

We certainly need new and thoughtful approaches, since the past half century of business as usual has got us nowhere.

References
Sheil, D., M. Boissière, and G. Beaudoin. 2015. Unseen sentinels: local monitoring and control in conservation’s blind spots. Ecology and Society 20(2): 39.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07625-200239
See also Mongabay: Local stewardship: conservation’s ‘vast blind spot’

The post Conservationists must engage local communities appeared first on Biodiversity Professionals.

There is a risk that traditional conservation strategies oriented toward biodiversity may not be effective at protecting the economic benefits of an ecosystem, and vice-versa. ~ Bill Adams

Putting a price on the services which a particular ecosystem provides may encourage the adoption of greener policies, but it may come at the price of biodiversity conservation. Writing today (30 October) in the journal Science, Professor Bill Adams of the University’s Department of Geography argues that assigning a quantitative value to nature does not automatically lead to the conservation of biodiversity, and may in fact contribute to species loss and conflict.

While assigning a monetary value to the benefits of an ecosystem can be an essential tool in the environmental planning process, unequal access to those benefits, particularly where there are differences in wealth and power, can lead to poor trade-offs being made, both for the ecosystem itself and those who rely on it.

“Putting a price on what nature provides is not in itself a conservation measure,” said Adams. “There is a risk that traditional conservation strategies oriented toward biodiversity may not be effective at protecting the economic benefits of an ecosystem, and vice-versa.”

For example, when stream channels in the US state of Maryland were re-engineered to provide a means of natural flood control, it ended up causing the loss of trees which had been growing next to the water and were unable to adapt to their new, drier environment.

The ways in which we depend on our natural environment are increasingly expressed as ‘ecosystem services’, or the range of benefits we get from nature for free. These benefits include the provision of food and clean water, erosion control and carbon storage. Quantifying the value of nature in this way is meant to allow policymakers to consider the potential economic and social impacts of altering a particular habitat.

This approach does sometimes lead to win-win scenarios, where the value of ecosystem services is dependent upon a high level of biodiversity. One example is in the coffee plantations of Costa Rica, where the retention of forest habitat in areas around the plantations doubled the amount of pest control of coffee berry borer beetle provided by birds, which benefitted the coffee farmers while protecting biodiversity.

However, consideration of ecosystem services when making decisions does not automatically lead to retention of biodiversity. “In many cases, trade-offs are made,” said Adams.

Several factors cause tension between biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services. One problem is that the biological and physical processes that guarantee the supply of specific ecosystem services may be different from those that support valued species. An ecosystem that is managed to deliver particular services may not support particular elements of biodiversity.

A second problem is that there are often no markets for some vital services, such as soil formation and nutrient cycling, and while payment schemes can be created to create market-like structures, the value assigned to ecosystem services depends on market prices, which are subject to change.

A third problem arises from the institutional and political processes linking economic benefits from ecosystems and human wellbeing. “Unequal access to benefits, for example where there are differences in wealth and power among stakeholders, can lead to trade-offs being made, with negative impacts for the ecosystem itself and those who rely on it,” Adams comments “It’s not enough to identify the net benefits of ecosystem services; it also matters who gets them.”

For example, in Nepal, research has shown that forests managed by the local community, rather than by the state, yielded benefits of clean water, tourism and harvested wild goods. However, these forests restricted poorer people’s access to forest-derived products, creating hardship, illegal use and impacts on other areas.

“In a world run according to economic arguments, the survival of biotic diversity will depend on its price,” said Adams. “Sometimes economics will favour conservation and sometimes it won’t. But conservationists need to plan for both outcomes.”

The text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to the original page. For image rights, please see the credits associated with each individual image.

Original article: Does it help conservation to put a price on nature?

The post Does it help conservation to put a price on nature? appeared first on Biodiversity Professionals.

Up to now, conservationists (and their donors) have assumed that conserving the maximum biodiversity also stores the most carbon. It’s supposedly a win-win. But two new studies turn this assumption its head.

In a July 2015 paper in Nature, the authors report that only a few “hyperdominant” species are responsible for most of the carbon stored in biomass, based on research in the Amazon rainforest. (Mongabay’s article on the Amazon carbon sequestration study provides a good synopsis of the paper.)

This work is consistent with another study on REDD and biodiversity published in Conservation Biology. This research highlights how meeting REDD+ targets will not substantially support biodiversity conservation. (The study is summarized in a blog article on the CIFOR website.)

The conclusion? Preserving the most species by leaving rainforest intact, or attempting to restore original biodiversity to degraded areas, is not the most efficient way to store carbon. That carbon would otherwise enter the atmosphere and contribute to global warming.

The findings present conservation organizations with a conundrum, especially those that emphasize carbon storage as a benefit of biodiversity conservation. Do they carry on business as usual, hoping that their donors and the public won’t care about the science? That would be disingenuous, if not dishonest. A better approach would be to switch focus and emphasize the importance of biodiversity conservation in its own right.

I’ve never been a big fan of tying biodiversity conservation to carbon storage because conflating the two amounts to a compromise that neither benefits conservation in the long run, nor significantly reduces carbon emissions. Indeed, paying a conservation organization to “offset” our personal carbon emissions simply assuages our guilt. Directly minimizing our personal carbon footprint by driving less and reducing power consumption is much more effective and empowering.

The point here is that carbon is essentially an economic and political problem, not a conservation problem. There are many ways to reduce emissions before we ever need conservation to be part of the solution. So should conservation organizations completely disentangle themselves from the carbon offset business? It may well be time to do so.

References
Sophie Fauset, S. et al. (2015) Hyperdominance in Amazonian forest carbon cycling. Nature Communications 6: 6857 doi:10.1038/ncomms7857
Murray, J. P. et al. (2015) Spatial patterns of carbon, biodiversity, deforestation threat, and REDD+ projects in Indonesia. Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12500

The post Carbon storage vs. biodiversity conservation appeared first on Biodiversity Professionals.

The dodo is perhaps the most famous victim of human-caused extinction. (Image courtesy of Wikipedia.)

Estimating the current rate of extinction

Part of the problem is that biodiversity, and therefore the current rate of extinction, is so poorly understood. Estimates of the total number of species range from 5±3 million to 11 million animal species worldwide. Given this uncertainty, the authors grapple with quantifying the natural, or background, rate of extinction. This number gives a baseline against which to evaluate the increased rate of extinction due to human activities. Using a metric of extinctions per million species-years (E/MSY), data from various sources indicate that present extinction rates are at least ~100 E/MSY, or a thousand times higher than the background rate of 0.1 E/MSY, estimated from fossil evidence.

Using technology to prioritize conservation

The good news is that scientists know more than ever before about areas where at-risk species are located, and that new technologies are helping scientists to discover new species and monitor populations, and therefore focus conservation actions more efficiently.

Combining data from bird species with small ranges and significant threats shows scientists where to prioritize conservation efforts. (Click for full size image. Courtesy of Dr. Clinton Jenkins, www.biodiversitymapping.org)

The Science article will appear online Thursday May 29, with an official publication date of Friday, May 30.

CITATION: “The Biodiversity of Species and Their Rates of Extinction, Distribution, and Protection,” by Stuart L. Pimm, Clinton N. Jenkins, Robin Abell, Tom M. Brooks, John. L. Gittleman, Lucas N. Joppa, Peter. H. Raven, Callum. M. Roberts, and Joe O. Sexton. Published May 30, 2014, in Science. DOI: 10.1126/science.1246752

References
Explanation of extinctions per million species-years
Where the threatened wild things are (New Scientist maps)

Update
June 20, 2014 — A link to a free PDF of the original Science paper is available on Clinton Jenkins’ website. Click here for the PDF.

The post Paper in Science says loss of species is 1000 times greater than the natural extinction rate appeared first on Biodiversity Professionals.