The value of species and the ethical foundations of assisted colonization

Why nature matters: A systematic review of intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values

In this article, we present results from a literature review of intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values of nature conducted for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, as part of the Methodological Assessment of the Diverse Values and Valuations of Nature. We identify the most frequently recurring meanings in the heterogeneous use of different value types and their association with worldviews and other key concepts. From frequent uses, we determine a core meaning for each value type, which is sufficiently inclusive to serve as an umbrella over different understandings in the literature and specific enough to help highlight its difference from the other types of values. Finally, we discuss convergences, overlapping areas, and fuzzy boundaries between different value types to facilitate dialogue, reduce misunderstandings, and improve the methods for valuation of nature's contributions to people, including ecosystem services, to inform policy and direct future research.

The ethics of species extinctions

This review provides an overview of the ethics of extinctions with a focus on the Western analytical environmental ethics literature. It thereby gives special attention to the possible philosophical grounds for Michael Soulé's assertion that the untimely 'extinction of populations and species is bad'. Illustrating such debates in environmental ethics, the guiding question for this review concerns why - or when - anthropogenic extinctions are bad or wrong, which also includes the question of when that might not be the case (i.e. which extinctions are even desirable). After providing an explanation of the disciplinary perspective taken (section "Introduction"), the concept of extinction and its history within that literature are introduced (section "Understanding extinction"). Then, in section "Why (or when) might anthropogenic extinctions be morally problematic?", different reasons for why anthropogenic extinctions might be morally problematic are presented based on the loss of species' value, harm to nonhuman individuals, the loss of valuable biological variety and duties to future generations. This section concludes by also considering cases where anthropogenic extinctions might be justified. Section "How to respond to extinctions?" then addresses a selection of topics concerning risks and de-extinction technologies. Finally, the section on "Extinction studies" introduces other viewpoints on the ethics of extinction from the extinction studies literature, followed by the "Conclusion".

Ecocentrism and Biosphere Life Extension

The biosphere represents the global sum of all ecosystems. According to a prominent view in environmental ethics, ecocentrism, these ecosystems matter for their own sake, and not only because they contribute to human ends. As such, some ecocentrists are critical of the modern industrial civilization, and a few even argue that an irreversible collapse of the modern industrial civilization would be a good thing. However, taking a longer view and considering the eventual destruction of the biosphere by astronomical processes, we argue that humans, a species with considerable technological know-how and industrial capacity could intervene to extend the lifespan of Earth's biosphere, perhaps by several billion years. We argue that human civilization, despite its flaws and harmful impacts on many ecosystems, is the biosphere's best hope of avoiding premature destruction. We argue that proponents of ecocentrism, even those who wholly disregard anthropocentric values, have a strong moral reason preserve the modern industrial civilization, for as long as needed to ensure biosphere survival.

Current Conservation Regimes and the Road to Laws on Assisted Migration

The negative impact of climate change on biodiversity will continue to escalate rapidly. While some species will naturally migrate to more suitable areas or adapt to the new climatic environmental conditions in different fashions, for others doing so may prove to be problematic or impossible. Against this backdrop, scientists and environmentalists have proposed implementing plans for Assisted Migration (AM)-meaning the translocation of plants and animals to areas outside their natural habitats to conserve their species under the new emerging climatic conditions. This article seeks to identify legal approaches towards AM considering not only possible benefits from using this tool but also a necessity to minimize related risks. With regard to its stated purpose, this article also compares legal and policy documents relevant to AM issues from the United States, Australia, and the European Union. In conclusion, we have found, and this article shows, that while existing legal and policy documents leave room for manoeuvreing in regard to climate-related translocations and even sometimes explicitly mention AM as a possible tool for conservation, there exists a need for the further development of concrete legal mechanisms and their balancing with the predominant ideas and goals brought about by the necessity to protect native biota.

Importance of species translocations under rapid climate change

Species that cannot adapt or keep pace with a changing climate are likely to need human intervention to shift to more suitable climates. While hundreds of articles mention using translocation as a climate-change adaptation tool, in practice, assisted migration as a conservation action remains rare, especially for animals. This is likely due to concern over introducing species to places where they may become invasive. However, there are other barriers to consider, such as time-frame mismatch, sociopolitical, knowledge and uncertainty barriers to conservationists adopting assisted migration as a go-to strategy. We recommend the following to advance assisted migration as a conservation tool: attempt assisted migrations at small scales, translocate species with little invasion risk, adopt robust monitoring protocols that trigger an active response, and promote political and public support.

Finding Purpose in the Conservation of Biodiversity by the Commingling of Science and Ethics

Averting the biodiversity crisis requires closing a gap between how humans tend to behave, individually and collectively, and how we ought to behave-"ought to" in the sense of behaviors required to avert the biodiversity crisis. Closing that gap requires synthesizing insight from ethics with insights from social and behavioral sciences. This article contributes to that synthesis, which presents in several provocative hypotheses: (i) Lessening the biodiversity crisis requires promoting pro-conservation behavior among humans. Doing so requires better scientific understanding of how one's sense of purpose in life affects conservation-relevant behaviors. Psychology and virtue-focused ethics indicate that behavior is importantly influenced by one's purpose. However, conservation psychology has neglected inquiries on (a) the influence of one's purpose (both the content and strength of one's purpose) on conservation-related behaviors and (b) how to foster pro-conservation purposes; (ii) lessening the biodiversity crisis requires governance-the regulation of behavior by governments, markets or other organization through various means, including laws, norms, and power-to explicitly take conservation as one of its fundamental purposes and to do so across scales of human behaviors, from local communities to nations and corporations; (iii) lessening the biodiversity crisis requires intervention via governance to nudge human behavior in line with the purpose of conservation without undue infringement on other basic values. Aligning human behavior with conservation is inhibited by the underlying purpose of conservation being underspecified. Adequate specification of conservation's purpose will require additional interdisciplinary research involving insights from ethics, social and behavioral sciences, and conservation biology.

The ethics of genetic engineering and gene drives in conservation

The ethical issues associated with using genetic engineering and gene drives in conservation are typically described as consisting of risk assessment and management, public engagement and acceptance, opportunity costs, risk and benefit distributions, and oversight. These are important, but the ethical concerns extend beyond them because the use of genetic engineering has the potential to significantly alter the practices, concepts, and value commitments of conservation. I sought to elucidate the broader set of ethical issues connected with a potential genetic engineering turn in conservation and provide an approach to ethical analysis of novel conservation technologies. The primary rationales offered in support of using genetic engineering and gene drives in conservation are efficiency and necessity for achieving conservation goals. The instrumentalist ethical perspective associated with these rationales involves assessing novel technologies as a means to accomplish desired ends. For powerful emerging technologies the instrumentalist perspective needs to be complemented by a form-of-life perspective frequently applied in the philosophy of technology. The form-of-life perspective involves considering how novel technologies restructure the activities into which they are introduced. When the form-of-life perspective is applied to creative genetic engineering in conservation, it brings into focus a set of ethical issues, such as those associated with power, meaning, relationships, and values, that are not captured by the instrumentalist perspective. It also illuminates why the use of gene drives in conservation is so ethically and philosophically interesting.

Structured Decision-Making Incorporates Stakeholder Values into Management Decisions Thereby Fulfilling Moral and Legal Obligations to Conserve Species

More than 1,500 species of plants and animals in the United States are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act and habitat destruction is the leading cause of population decline. However, developing conservation plans that are consistent with a diversity of stakeholder (e.g., states, tribes, private landowners) values is difficult. Adaptive management and structured decision-making are frameworks that resource managers can use to integrate diverse and conflicting stakeholder value systems into species recovery planning. Within this framework difficult decisions are deconstructed into the three basic components: explicit, quantifiable objectives that represent stakeholder values; mathematical models used to predict the effect of management decisions on the outcome of objectives; and management alternatives or actions. We use Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus, a species listed in 1999 as threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, as an example of how structured decision-making transparently incorporates stakeholder values and biological information into conservation planning and the decision process. Three moral philosophies—consequentialism, deontology, and virtue theory—suggest that structured decision-making is a justified method that can guide natural resource decisions in the future, consistent with United States Congress' mandate, and will honor society's obligation to recover Endangered Species Act listed species and their habitats. Natural sciences offer a biological basis for predicting the outcomes of decisions. Additionally, an understanding of how to integrate humanities into scientifically defensible conservation planning is helpful in providing the foundation for lasting and effective species conservation.

The Ethics of Human⁻Animal Relationships and Public Discourse: A Case Study of Lions Bred for Their Bones

Simple Summary

In South Africa, lions are farmed, and a product of that farming is lion skeletons that form part of an international trade to supply traditional medicine markets in Southeast Asia with felid bones. As a matter of public policy, the practice is a complicated nexus of concerns for entrepreneurial freedom, wildlife conservation, and the fair treatment of animals. We used this case to demonstrate how public discourse about ethically-charged policies can be aided by a technique from the academic field of applied ethics, i.e., formal argument analysis. We showed how the technique can be integrated into existing frameworks for public decision-making. To further facilitate the application of this technique to other cases, we also offered ten general lessons for formal analysis of ethical arguments.

Abstract

Conservation and natural resource management are increasingly attending the ethical elements of public decisions. Ethical considerations are challenging, in part, because they typically require accounting for the moral consideration of various human and nonhuman forms of life, whose interests sometimes conflict (or seem to conflict). A valuable tool for such evaluations is the formal analysis of ethical arguments. An ethical argument is a collection of premises, logically interrelated, to yield a conclusion that can be expressed in the form, “We ought to…” According to the rules of logic, a conclusion is supported by an argument if all its premises are true or appropriate and when it contains no mistaken inferences. We showed how the formal analysis of ethical arguments can be used to engage stakeholders and decision-makers in decision-making processes. We summarised the method with ten specific guidelines that would be applicable to any case. We illustrated the technique using a case study focused on captive-bred lions, the skeletons of which form part of an international trade to supply traditional medicine markets in Southeast Asia with felid bones. As a matter of public policy, the practice is a complicated nexus of concerns for entrepreneurial freedom, wildlife conservation, and the fair treatment of animals.

Evaluating whether nature's intrinsic value is an axiom of or anathema to conservation

That at least some aspects of nature possess intrinsic value is considered by some an axiom of conservation. Others consider nature's intrinsic value superfluous or anathema. This range of views among mainstream conservation professionals potentially threatens the foundation of conservation. One challenge in resolving this disparity is that disparaging portrayals of nature's intrinsic value appear rooted in misconceptions and unfounded presumptions about what it means to acknowledge nature's intrinsic value. That acknowledgment has been characterized as vacuous, misanthropic, of little practical consequence to conservation, adequately accommodated by economic valuation, and not widely accepted in society. We reviewed the philosophical basis for nature's intrinsic value and the implications for acknowledging that value. Our analysis is rooted to the notion that when something possesses intrinsic value it deserves to be treated with respect for what it is, with concern for its welfare or in a just manner. From this basis, one can only conclude that nature's intrinsic value is not a vacuous concept or adequately accommodated by economic valuation. Acknowledging nature's intrinsic value is not misanthropic because concern for nature's welfare (aside from its influence on human welfare) does not in any way preclude also being concerned for human welfare. The practical import of acknowledging nature's intrinsic value rises from recognizing all the objects of conservation concern (e.g., many endangered species) that offer little benefit to human welfare. Sociological and cultural evidence indicates the belief that at least some elements of nature possess intrinsic value is widespread in society. Our reasoning suggests the appropriateness of rejecting the assertion that nature's intrinsic value is anathema to conservation and accepting its role as an axiom.

Old wine, new bottles? Using history to inform the assisted colonization debate

Assisted colonization, or the translocation of species threatened with extinction to habitats outside their indigenous range (usually as a response to predicted climate shifts), is a divisive issue for conservationists. Yet, history shows that wildlife scientists were discussing the trade-offs and challenges of translocating species for conservation purposes, including introducing them to new habitats, long before anthropogenic climate change was recognized as posing a conservation problem. Here we examine a case of the scientific and policy deliberations of a high profile group of scientists and policy advisers from the 1960s (the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife's Committee on Rare and Endangered Wildlife Species) to provide a useful historical context for assessing current debates on assisted colonization. The Committee's attempt to produce a consistent policy for the ‘transplantation’ of threatened species illustrates how translocation debates have long hinged on an unresolved set of scientific and conceptual concerns, including the relative value of individual species and historically intact ecosystems and the philosophical status of human-assisted movement of wildlife. Bringing the Committee's deliberations to light places contemporary debates over assisted colonization in the USA in their historical context and illustrates how what often appear to be highly technical and scientific disagreements over conservation translocations are ultimately driven by deeper conceptual issues about the means and ends of conservation.

Translocation of imperiled species under changing climates

Conservation translocation of species varies from restoring historic populations to managing the relocation of imperiled species to new locations. We review the literature in three areas--translocation, managed relocation, and conservation decision making--to inform conservation translocation under changing climates. First, climate change increases the potential for conflict over both the efficacy and the acceptability of conservation translocation. The emerging literature on managed relocation highlights this discourse. Second, conservation translocation works in concert with other strategies. The emerging literature in structured decision making provides a framework for prioritizing conservation actions--considering many possible alternatives that are evaluated based on expected benefit, risk, and social-political feasibility. Finally, the translocation literature has historically been primarily concerned with risks associated with the target species. In contrast, the managed relocation literature raises concerns about the ecological risk to the recipient ecosystem. Engaging in a structured decision process that explicitly focuses on stakeholder engagement, problem definition and specification of goals from the outset will allow creative solutions to be developed and evaluated based on their expected effectiveness.

Securing the demographic and genetic future of tuatara through assisted colonization

Climate change poses a particular threat to species with fragmented distributions and little or no capacity to migrate. Assisted colonization, moving species into regions where they have not previously occurred, aims to establish populations where they are expected to survive as climatic envelopes shift. However, adaptation to the source environment may affect whether species successfully establish in new regions. Assisted colonization has spurred debate among conservation biologists and ecologists over whether the potential benefits to the threatened species outweigh the potential disruption to recipient communities. In our opinion, the debate has been distracted by controversial examples, rather than cases where assisted colonization may be a viable strategy. We present a strategic plan for the assisted migration of tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus), an endemic New Zealand reptile. The plan includes use of extant populations as reference points for comparisons with assisted-colonization populations with respect to demography, phenotypic plasticity, and phenology; optimization of genetic variation; research to fill knowledge gaps; consideration of host and recipient communities; and inclusion of stakeholders in the planning stage. When strategically planned and monitored, assisted colonization could meet conservation and research goals and ultimately result in the establishment of long-term sustainable populations capable of persisting during rapid changes in climate.

The potential conservation value of non-native species

Non-native species can cause the loss of biological diversity (i.e., genetic, species, and ecosystem diversity) and threaten the well-being of humans when they become invasive. In some cases, however, they can also provide conservation benefits. We examined the ways in which non-native species currently contribute to conservation objectives. These include, for example, providing habitat or food resources to rare species, serving as functional substitutes for extinct taxa, and providing desirable ecosystem functions. We speculate that non-native species might contribute to achieving conservation goals in the future because they may be more likely than native species to persist and provide ecosystem services in areas where climate and land use are changing rapidly and because they may evolve into new and endemic taxa. The management of non-native species and their potential integration into conservation plans depends on how conservation goals are set in the future. A fraction of non-native species will continue to cause biological and economic damage, and substantial uncertainty surrounds the potential future effects of all non-native species. Nevertheless, we predict the proportion of non-native species that are viewed as benign or even desirable will slowly increase over time as their potential contributions to society and to achieving conservation objectives become well recognized and realized.

Beyond predictions: biodiversity conservation in a changing climate

Climate change is predicted to become a major threat to biodiversity in the 21st century, but accurate predictions and effective solutions have proved difficult to formulate. Alarming predictions have come from a rather narrow methodological base, but a new, integrated science of climate-change biodiversity assessment is emerging, based on multiple sources and approaches. Drawing on evidence from paleoecological observations, recent phenological and microevolutionary responses, experiments, and computational models, we review the insights that different approaches bring to anticipating and managing the biodiversity consequences of climate change, including the extent of species' natural resilience. We introduce a framework that uses information from different sources to identify vulnerability and to support the design of conservation responses. Although much of the information reviewed is on species, our framework and conclusions are also applicable to ecosystems, habitats, ecological communities, and genetic diversity, whether terrestrial, marine, or fresh water.

Challenges and opportunities in implementing managed relocation for conservation of freshwater species

The rapidity of climate change is predicted to exceed the ability of many species to adapt or to disperse to more climatically favorable surroundings. Conservation of these species may require managed relocation (also called assisted migration or assisted colonization) of individuals to locations where the probability of their future persistence may be higher. The history of non-native species throughout the world suggests managed relocation may not be applicable universally. Given the constrained existence of freshwater organisms within highly dendritic networks containing isolated ponds, lakes, and rivers, managed relocation may represent a useful conservation strategy. Yet, these same distinctive properties of freshwater ecosystems may increase the probability of unintended ecological consequences. We explored whether managed relocation is an ecologically sound conservation strategy for freshwater systems and provided guidelines for identifying candidates and localities for managed relocation. A comparison of ecological and life-history traits of freshwater animals associated with high probabilities of extirpation and invasion suggests that it is possible to select species for managed relocation to minimize the likelihood of unintended effects to recipient ecosystems. We recommend that translocations occur within the species' historical range and optimally within the same major river basin and that lacustrine and riverine species be translocated to physically isolated seepage lakes and upstream of natural or artificial barriers, respectively, to lower the risk of secondary spread across the landscape. We provide five core recommendations to enhance the scientific basis of guidelines for managed relocation in freshwater environments: adopt the term managed translocation to reflect the fact that individuals will not always be reintroduced within their historical native range; examine the trade-off between facilitation of individual movement and the probability of range expansion of non-native species; determine which species and locations might be immediately considered for managed translocation; adopt a hypothetico-deductive framework by conducting experimental trials to introduce species of conservation concern into new areas within their historical range; build on previous research associated with species reintroductions through communication and synthesis of case studies.

Move it or lose it? The ecological ethics of relocating species under climate change

Managed relocation (also known as assisted colonization, assisted migration) is one of the more controversial proposals to emerge in the ecological community in recent years. A conservation strategy involving the translocation of species to novel ecosystems in anticipation of range shifts forced by climate change, managed relocation (MR) has divided many ecologists and conservationists, mostly because of concerns about the potential invasion risk of the relocated species in their new environments. While this is indeed an important consideration in any evaluation of MR, moving species across the landscape in response to predicted climate shifts also raises a number of larger and important ethical and policy challenges that need to be addressed. These include evaluating the implications of a more aggressive approach to species conservation, assessing MR as a broader ecological policy and philosophy that departs from longstanding scientific and management goals focused on preserving ecological integrity, and considering MR within a more comprehensive ethical and policy response to climate change. Given the complexity and novelty of many of the issues at stake in the MR debate, a more dynamic and pragmatic approach to ethical analysis and debate is needed to help ecologists, conservationists, and environmental decision makers come to grips with MR and the emerging ethical challenges of ecological policy and management under global environmental change.