Search

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has become influential in biodiversity conservation. Its research is published widely and has been adopted by the United Nations and the Convention for Biological Diversity. This platform includes discussion about how values relate to biodiversity conservation. The IPBES emphasizes “relational values”, connecting these with living a “good life,” and “nature's contributions to people” (NCP); building upon ecosystem services (ES), which have dominated nature valuation for 15+ years. Although the IPBES acknowledges instrumental and intrinsic natural values, they purport that by adopting relational values, conservation will become more socially- and culturally- inclusive, moving beyond the “unhelpful dichotomy” between instrumental and intrinsic values. We wholeheartedly agree that conservation should become more inclusive – it should, in fact, morally include nonhuman nature. We argue that far from being half of an unhelpful dichotomy, intrinsic natural values are incontrovertible elements of any honest effort to sustain Earth's biodiversity. We find NCP to be mainly anthropocentric, and relational values to be largely instrumental. The “good life” they support is a good life for humans, and not for nonhuman beings or collectives. While passingly acknowledging intrinsic natural values, the current IPBES platform gives little attention to these, and to corresponding ecocentric worldviews. In this paper we demonstrate the important practical implications of operationalizing intrinsic values for conservation, such as ecological justice, i.e., “peoples' obligations to nature”. We urge the IPBES platform, in their future values work, to become much more inclusive of intrinsic values and ecocentrism.

Many authors have noted the role that anthropocentrism has played in creating humanity’s dysfunctional relationship with the natural world. As human hubris (excessive pride or self-confidence) is an ailment that contributes to the anthropogenic sixth mass extinction of Earth’s biodiversity, we argue instead for ‘harmony with nature’. In recent decades, even the conservation discourse has become increasingly anthropocentric. Indeed, justification for nature conservation has in part shifted from nature’s intrinsic value to ‘ecosystem services’ for the benefit of people. Here we call for a transformation to a more harmonious human-nature relationship that is grounded in mutual respect and principled responsibility, instead of utilitarianism and enlightened self-interest. Far from what Tennyson called ‘red in tooth and claw’, we argue nature is a mixture of cooperation as well as competition. We argue that the UN’s ‘Harmony with Nature’ program is an innovative and refreshing path for change. If we are to achieve harmony with nature, modern industrial society will need to abandon its anthropocentric ‘human supremacy’ mindset and adopt an ecocentric worldview and ecological ethics. We conclude it is thus both appropriate (and essential) for conservationists to champion harmony with nature.

Over the past 5 decades, scientists have been documenting negative anthropogenic environmental change, expressing increasing alarm, and urging dramatic socioecological transformation in response. A host of international meetings have been held, but the erosion of biological diversity continues to accelerate. Why, then, has no effective political action been taken? We contend that part of the answer may lie in the anthropocentric ethical premises and moral rhetoric typically deployed in the cause of conservation. We further argue that it is essential to advance moral arguments for biodiversity conservation that are not just based on perceived human interests but on ecocentric values, namely, convictions that species and ecosystems have value and interests that should be respected regardless of whether they serve human needs and aspirations. A broader array of moral rationales for biodiversity conservation, we conclude, would be more likely to lead to effective plans, adopted and enforced by governments, designed to conserve biological diversity. A good place to start in this regard would be to explicitly incorporate ecocentric values into the recommendations that will be made at the conclusion of the 15th meeting of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, scheduled to be held in October 2020.La Necesidad del Ecocentrismo en la Conservación de la Biodiversidad Resumen Durante las últimas cinco décadas, los científicos han estado documentando el cambio ambiental negativo causado por la actividad humana, expresando cada vez una mayor alarma e insistiendo por una transformación socio-ecológica dramática como respuesta. Se han realizado un número de reuniones internacionales pero la erosión de la diversidad biológica se sigue acelerando. Entonces, ¿por qué no se han tomado acciones políticas efectivas? Sostenemos que parte de la respuesta a esta pregunta puede estar en las premisas éticas antropocéntricas y en la retórica moral que típicamente se despliega para la causa de la conservación. Además, argumentamos que es esencial promover argumentos morales para la conservación de la biodiversidad que no estén solamente basados en los intereses humanos percibidos sino en los valores ecocéntricos, principalmente la convicción de que las especies y los ecosistemas tienen valor e intereses que deberían respetarse sin importar si sirven a las necesidades y aspiraciones humanas. Concluimos que un conjunto más amplio de justificaciones morales para la conservación de la biodiversidad tendría mayor probabilidad de guiar planes efectivos, adoptados y aplicados por los gobiernos, diseñados para conservar la diversidad biológica. Un buen punto de partida al respecto sería la incorporación explícita de los valores ecocéntricos dentro de las recomendaciones que se harán al concluir la decimoquinta reunión de las partes que forman al Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica, programada para octubre 2020.在过去的半个世纪中, 科学家们报道了许多人类对环境的负面影响, 同时越来越多地发出警告, 并大力呼吁推动社会生态的巨大变革来作出响应。目前已经举行了许多相关的国际会议, 但生物多样性受到的侵蚀仍在加剧。为什么人们还没有采取有效的政治行动呢？我们认为部分原因可能在于保护工作中惯用的以人类为中心的伦理前提和道德修辞。我们还认为, 推进生物多样性保护的道德论证至关重要, 它不仅要基于人类的利益, 还应基于生态中心主义的价值观, 即无论物种和生态系统是否满足人类的需求和愿望, 都应尊重它们的价值和利益。本文的结论是, 在生物多样性保护中引入更广泛的道德理论才更有可能推动政府为保护生物多样性而通过和执行的有效计划。在这方面, 一个很好的起点是明确地将生态中心价值观纳入 2020 年 10 月即将举行的《生物多样性公约》第十五次缔约方会议在结论部分提出的建议之中。翻译: 胡怡思; 审校: 聂永刚.