Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Biodiversity
Conservation Law
Fulya BATUR, LL.M.
1. Introducing Ethics
DESCRIPTIVE JUDGMENT
FACTS (observed / verified through experience) : « This IS… »
Genetic diversity is lost because of the uniformisation of modern seed varieties
• We appreciate it
• Aesthetic value (Pleasure/appreciation) Non-Use Values
• Ethical transcription
• John PASSMORE (1974), Man’s Responsibility for Nature
• Ethical dichotomy between:
DUTY TO PROTECT
• Cooperative stewardship
• Despotic dominion CAPACITY TO USE
Value Systems: Polarized Ethics
CAPACITY TO USE DUTY TO PROTECT
ANTHROPOCENTRISM ECOCENTRISM
Morally right if (now and in the future) Morally right if promotes well-being,
promotes well-being, integrity and beauty integrity and beauty of the biotic
of human community community
Values derived from benefits brought to Values exist independently from humans,
humans (desires, needs, purposes and the on their own
satisfaction of those)
SHALLOW
Anthropocentrism: Human-centred Ethics
• Why?
• Human dominion over nature
• Nature is instrumental to our well-being
• Value system?
• Utilitarian theory: moral worth of actions determined through
contribution to utility, be it happiness, pleasure or satisfaction
• How?
• Hierarchical value scale with humankind on top : all other values
subordinated to our priorities
• Rio Declaration’92: « Human beings are at the center of sustainable
development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in
harmony with nature »
Anthropocentrism: Shortcomings
• Disregard for Evolutionary nature of valued object
• Anthropocentric approach only cares for the « being » rather than the « becoming »
(Ilya PRIGOGINE and Isabelle STENGERS, 1984)
• Biodiversity is not static
• Processes inherent to nature may be more ‘useful’ than entities in themselves (plant
breeding, development of insect resistance…)
• Human welfare does not always need environmental preservation
• All instrumental values can be fulfilled through other outlets (our need for beauty and
calm can be found in fine arts)
• Exception for those functions ensuring the continuity of life (food, air and water), we
need nature but maybe not in the future? Technological change
• Failure to achieve environmental policy or conservation objectives
• Conqueror image prevents preservation environment and will lead to its complete
destruction
• Not environmental ethic but human ethic!
• « Arrogance of Humanism » (David EHRENFELD, 1981)
• Failure to recognize the gravity of environmental degradation and humankind’s
responsibility
• More value to nature than merely its capacity to satisfy us?
Ecocentrism: Life-centred Ethics
• Why?
• All life forms are interdependent
• Wilderness has intrinsic value and is non-renewable, thereby requires
new ethics system
• Solely referring to human-centered values is « shallowly arrogant »
• Rejects central tenet of anthropocentrism (no exclusive or arbitrarily
preferential consideration for human interests)
• Value System?
• Ecocentric / holistic theory where nature is valuable in itself
• Need to describe non-human natural world in non-anthropocentric terms
• Recognition of intrinsic value to nature best way to describe such premise
• Certain « weak ecocentric » authors recognize the need for certain
utilitarian values that go beyond mere resource value
Ecocentrism : Conceptualisation
• Mysticist approach: Deep Ecology (Arne NAESS, 1973)
• Holistic conceptualisation of nature as a self-regulating,
interdependent whole: « Nature is more than the sum of its parts »
• Rejects conception of « man-in-environment » : always in relation with
nature
• Modern ecological version of traditional mysticism: if no « greater
whole », then no reason to value nature for itself?
• Promise of self-realization through communion with Nature (Cosmos,
Gaia…)
• Ecocentric approach
• Need to be protected since have intrinsic value on their own
• No monetary valuation should normally take place as they are part of
a greater whole
• There is never any benefit to the destruction of nature « except to satisfy
basic needs » (what are those basic needs?)
• Anthropocentric approach
• Need to be protected so far as they contribute to welfare: species’
contribution needs to be determined
• Cost-benefit analysis
• Can you make fuel with the species? Does it protect another species?
• What is the damage done to agricultural biodiversity and production?
The pressure put upon local diversity?
• Territoriality
• Defining the borders of valuation
• Nationally trivial maize species might be crucial for local population
Conundrums in « Visions of Nature »?
VIS-A-VIS THE SUBJECT (Human valuator)
• Whose vision?
• Policy-makers? Scientists? Economists? Practicing lawyers? All
citizens (national, regional, local levels)?
• Based on?
• Constructivism: Social constructs, tied to social interactions and
underlying cultural values
• Realism: Reality on the field, geographical and biological thruth:
nature exists and needs to be conserved
• Intergenerational considerations
• Defining time-frames and regard for future generations: externality
from our ‘successive dictatorships’
• Should we taken into account the needs and benefits of future
generations? As future / option values? Through other construct?
Inter- and Intra- generational Equity :
New value system?
• Why?
• Feeling obliged to leave fair legacy in natural environment to future
generations
• Feeling obliged not to destroy livelihoods and natural environment of
other humanbeings living on this planet
1. Introducing Ethics
• Moral valuation exists, yet biodiversity is still lost? Do people lie, why
aren’t they motivated?
DESCRIPTIVE JUDGMENT
VALUE JUDGMENT
ANTHROPOCENTRIC NORMATIVE JUDGMENT
Biodiversity has value as long
as it contributes to human
welfare PRESCRIPTIONS
• List of endangered species that are the most important resources for
humankind (whether on the basis of financial or sentimental values),
• WWF list of species including dolphins and not sharks?
• Nature becomes a subject of rights since all sensible and insensible beings
have inherent values: recognition of biotic rights (to nature and animals)
• List of endangered species based simply on their numbers (IUCN Red List)
1. Introducing Ethics
??
TOTAL ECONOMIC
ECO-PRAGMATISM ? PLURALISM ?
VALUE ?
Eco-Pragmatism
• Pragmatism in Philosophy? C.I. LEWIS, Holmes ROLSTON
• Valuing is merely an activity without fixed ends/objectives that guide
all our actions: inter-related nature of all human values
• Not understood in philosophy as in common language: not
necessarily short-sighted or inherently anthropocentric since
• Values can transcend human concerns (subjectivism not necessarily
subject-centric)
• Ecosystem services are more based on bio-mass and bio-productivity than bio-
diversity (not enough ecocentric considerations?)
• Against this background, economists have been developing less abstract, e.g.
more qualitative, discourse based and ‘embedded’ methods of economic
valuation of biodiversity (e.g. Chee, 2004; Kumar and Kumar, 2008; Spash 2008;
see also the VALVE project of the EU).
• Much of this state of the art is at present embedded in the European TEEB
project (‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity’)
What next? BIOMOT Project FP7
“MOTivational strength of ecosystem services and alternative ways to
express the value of BIOdiversity”