Conservation History and Ethics

 

Readings: Ehrlich, P.R. 2002. Human natures, nature conservation, and environmental ethics. BioScience 52:31-43.

           

This course began with a history of conservation biology and its sources as a scientific discipline. We’ll finish with a slightly different history: a history reflecting the ethical underpinnings of conservation.

 

Primitive cultures are now acknowledged to have caused massive species extinctions in newly colonized habitats (recall our examination of biodiversity extinctions on islands).  However, they are also attributed with conservation ethics to ensure long-term food supplies (e.g. tropical forest dweller tribes in Central and especially South American forests protected trees that produced rubber, nuts, and herbals of various sorts).  Most ecologists are convinced that there is a pressing need for conservation programs today given that extinction of species appears to be occurring at rate orders of magnitude higher than the background level.

 

After briefly reviewing the development of conservation ethics, we will hold a group discussion on what factors ought to be considered in formulating policies regarding conservation, land management, captive breeding programs etc.

 

Although the focus of our discussion will be directed principally on North American conservation ethics, it must be recognized that other cultures have long used various conservation schemes. For example, ancient Chinese and Japanese (Shinto) cultures viewed conservation as important either for spiritual or religious reasons, as did east-Indian Hindus.

 

In the USA, conservation attitudes developed through a series of differing views:

 

1) Romantic-Transcendental Conservation Ethic: Emerson, Thoreau, and later Muir: these individuals took a quasi-religious view of nature, arguing that natural areas and species had intrinsic value and must be so viewed.  This view resulted in formation of organizations such as the Sierra Club, and preservation of a large redwood tract 15 km from San Francisco earlier this century (Muir Woods). This is a view to preserve “wildness”. It is strongly opposed to harvesting these resources and destroying nature in a “profligate materialism”. It believes that the preservation of wild nature is a “morally superior” way to “use” natural resources.

 

2) Resource Conservation Ethic or Utilitarianism: Species and habitats provide goods, services and information that are valuable to humans. As opposed to the Romantic-Transcendental view, most people want affordable housing materials, food, fiber, and land. Call it industry and prosperity in general. This view was initially presented by Jeremy Bentham (1823). Thus, all efforts were directed to maximizing the sustainable harvest of the taxon.

 

A more widely used version of this ethic is traceable to Gifford Pinchot; his view is sometimes called Progressivism. The most direct, simple statement of the resource conservation ethic, whatever name it goes by is “the greatest good of the greatest number for the longest time”. Sustainability here means equity, not just for the present but for future generations, as well. It avoids any claim of best use, and instead suggests a “multiple use” framework.

 

A carryover from the conservation economics lecture: the economic values of different uses frequently represent comparisons of “apples and oranges”. Market forces rarely take into account “externalities” – environmental costs of doing business, such as soil erosion and pollution. Standard economics discounts the future dollar value of resources in comparison with present value. A simplistic way to understand this is to think of the interest the current value could accrue before some future time is reached. But the conservation or biological value is estimated by the economic worth of resource preservation into the future. You should be able to see that standard economic valuation makes this an unfair comparison.

 

This form of conservation ethic has been widely used in Ontario, the rest of Canada and in the USA in the form of multiple-land-use policies which permit, for example, logging to occur on the same tract of public land as camping, hiking and fishing and snowmobiling. This policy, while having strong adherents in industry, has come under heavy strain in recent years with respect to forests in B.C., Ontario and the western U.S.A. This policy was also to instrumental in plans to permit  a large aluminum extraction plant to modify water flow rates in northern rivers in B.C., until it was successfully argued that fishing grounds would suffer greatly. Conflicts are very likely to occur with this form of land conservation.It should also be apparent that each of the approaches considered thus far is highly anthropocentric. The comparison is sometimes stated in the form “only people possess intrinsic value; nature possess merely instrumental value” (see below for definitions of intrinsic and instrumental value).

 

It is estimated that the only 1.7 million species have been named, whereas between 10 and 50 million exist on the planet. If, as Peter Raven suggests, 25% of these taxa (mainly tropical forest species) go extinct owing to human activities, then we will lose a huge repository of information without ever knowing it.

 

When considering the value of biodiversity, two schools of thought emerge:

 

Instrumental Value: Species and ecosystems have value as goods or services or as information sources.

 

Intrinsic Value: Species have value or good in their own right; this principle applies to individuals, though conservation biologists also apply it to species and ecosystems. If biodiversity can be said to have intrinsic value, then the onus switches to developers from biologists
who must answer why it is permissible to destroy it.  This is an important shift since otherwise only economic arguments are considered (favouring development).

 

Muir, later in life, turned to a biblical view and away from anthropocentrism to place us in the context of nature; God created man and all other creatures, as well; all species should have intrinsic value. That leads to ….

 

3) Evolutionary - Ecological Land Ethic - This view was promoted by Aldo Leopold and others. It maintains that ecosystems are equilibrial systems of species interacting with the environment. Efficient functioning of systems (stable systems) required that 'all cogs in the wheel' be present. Processes and interactions within ecosystems are complex and integrated. Sometimes this takes on a colour that comes from F.E. Clements, who believed ecosystems to be structurally much like organisms. The organism cannot survive and function without all its organs; would you survive without a liver?

 

Leopold had a definition of what “to preserve” meant:

 

   A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”

 

4) Modern Synthesis: This view of equilibrial ecosystems was a by-product of ecological thought of the day.  It is now recognized that species and ecosystems are rarely in equilibrium, though the component species may interact strongly at times.  Storms, wind, waves, floods, droughts, fires, etc. affect species and communities, constantly resetting the ecological succession clock.  In this sense,
dynamic systems respond to natural environmental change, and responses require maintenance of genetic diversity.  Humans will dictate the future of many ecosystems globally, and attempts must be made to ensure that biodiversity is protected where appropriate, based on scientific principles. Attempts must be made to include affected peoples in realistic development plans - e.g.  sacrifice some lands for sustainable production while preserving others, thus providing people with a livelihood while maintaining biodiversity. If we not provide persons in developing countries with alternatives to deforestation, we are hypocritical in asking them not to cut their forests. If, on the other hand, we work with them to develop less harmful land-use practices, we may fulfill our desire to protect endangered habitats as well as their financial needs.  For example, in Kalimantan, Indonesia, valuable tree species are encouraged to grow in plots by removal of competitor trees.  The most valuable trees are harvested and replanted on land that is sacrificed specifically for this purpose.  Degradation
of small plots provides income for natives, while saving the larger forest intact.

 

In other cases, social structures must change to ensure economic viability of individuals as they age. Population growth rates can be cut only if individuals are guaranteed sources of income should they become ill or old.  Otherwise, people with have larger families to ensure that a relative will be present to care for them when they are elderly. Canada pension plan contributions are sky-rocketing right now, to provide income for retiring individuals.  You may pay far more into the system than you will ever get back, but these policies serve to reduce population growth rate by ensuring income in retirement years.

 

What conservation provides:

 

One approach to justify biodiversity involves applying a monetary value to it: biodiversity may be valuable not only in terms of what it is worth on the open market (walrus and elephant ivory), but also for services that it provides (e.g. ecotourism, watershed stabilization for water supplies). This approach has been successfully marketed in Southwestern Ontario at Point Pelee National Park. Preservation of the forest has resulted in a thriving bird-watching industry each May, bringing in $3.8 million.

 

One suggestion to minimize dangers of overexploitation of resources is to 'enclose' or assign property rights to it.  These rights would limit exploitation to specifically designated individuals (permit holders) whose harvest would be constrained and monitored. This procedure can minimize Tragedy of the Commons since an individuals is less likely to plunder their personal resource than individuals harvesting from an open population (e.g. marine commercial fishing). However, this approach would be difficult to implement with resources that are open to international exploitation (e.g. cod fishery in Canada).  Here, the government must seek to reduce or eliminate international exploitation (extend the range of offshore habitat protected to 200km or more), and use internal methods (permits, still fines, jail?) to control domestic exploitation.

 

Hampicke (1994) describes 3 economic approaches to evaluation of the value of biodiversity:

 

1) Monetary evaluation is impossible: development will result in extinction of an endemic species or other nonreversible non-trivial losses;

 

2) Willingness-to-pay arguments:  How much money a systems is worth can be estimated by the cost incurred by individuals to visit it. e.g. East African safaris or Costa Rican rain forests - the latter suggests that the biodiversity is 1 to 2 orders of magnitude more valuable than the price of the land at current prices. Thus conversion of this land to pasture is completely uneconomic.  This procedure underestimates the real value since many people who would like to visit or preserve the habitat presently cannot do so. This is the options value of the land - how much they would be willing to pay to preserve the land even though they may not use it themselves.  Windsor just acquired Peche Island from the province at a cost of $1 million -$5 per resident.  Clearly, the city had put a valuation on the land to arrive at this number.

 

3) Nature's Services - assess material and immaterial services provided by the land.  For example, a case in Peru indicated that the annual value of income generated by nuts and wild rubber exceeded the cattle ranching value by a factor of 4. Such resources would be exploited only if they were economically viable and were not superseded by ethical considerations.

 

References

Callicott, J.B. 1990. Whither conservation ethics? Conserv. Biol. 4:15-20.

Ehrlich, P.R. 2002. Human natures, nature conservation, and environmental ethics. Bioscience 52:31- 43.

Hampicke, U. 1994. Ethics and economics of conservation. Biological Conservation 67:219:231.
Meffe, G.W. and R. Carroll. 1997. Principles of Conservation Biology. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.


Group Discussion Topics:

1) Is it appropriate to spend limited financial resources on recovery programs for critically endangered species?
2) If so, should we focus on species or subspecies (eg. Florida panther)?
3) Is it appropriate to use introgression a conservation genetics tool?
4) Should re-introduction schemes (wolves in Yellowstone Park) be permitted?
5) In designing reserves, should emphasis be placed on multiple-use or single-use applications?
6) Is there necessarily a tradeoff between economic and ecological well-being?