New article: The ethical foundations of biodiversity metrics

Biodiversity loss is a critical concern in conservation, prompting governments and organizations worldwide to develop policies and strategies aimed at restoring ecosystems. However, conservation requires more than just reliable ecological metrics; it also demands a closer look at the philosophical values underlying them, writes Eliza Nobles.
Kirstenbosch National Botanical Garden in Cape Town, South Africa.
Kirstenbosch National Botanical Garden in Cape Town, South Africa. Photo: Maria Groth & Mostphoto.

Tracing four key focal areas—Red Listing, species richness, environmental indicators, and the integration of human values—this review highlights the evolution of conservation priorities over time and emphasizes the importance of clearly articulating the values guiding conservation metrics moving forward.

1. Red Listing and the Extinction Focus

The Red List, developed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in 1964, focuses on assessing species rarity and extinction risk. While widely used, this framework raises normative questions about the focus on species as discrete entities, the moral significance of extinction, and the practical challenges of species classification. Philosophical debates highlight tensions between aesthetic, instrumental, and intrinsic arguments.

2. Species Diversity as Ecosystem Function

The term “biodiversity” gained prominence in the 1980s, emphasizing the role of species diversity in ecosystem functionality. Metrics such as species richness became widely used, but such metrics don’t fully capture the broader values associated with biodiversity. Emphasizing the “option value” of biodiversity for future benefits offers a potential pathway for realigning conservation with its ethical foundations.

3. Ecological Indicators and Human Impacts

Advances in technology and international planning in the last few decades have led to sophisticated biodiversity indicators. These tools measure environmental health, but they often depend on contested concepts like “naturalness” and “pristine” baselines. Defining reference states and similar concerns introduce ethical dilemmas about humanity’s role in nature and the moral justification for pursuing specific conservation goals.

4. Human Values in Biodiversity Conservation

Recent biodiversity policy frameworks advocate for ethical pluralism by recognizing biodiversity’s cultural, economic, and intrinsic values. However, the broad range of metrics and values potentially supported by these frameworks risks diluting conservation priorities. While pluralistic approaches aim to integrate diverse perspectives, they require clearer ethical foundations to achieve desired outcomes.

Conclusion

Biodiversity metrics are not merely scientific tools; they are entwined with philosophical values. As conservation efforts expand into the financial sector, there is a pressing need to articulate these values explicitly and ensure metrics align with ethical goals. By addressing normative assumptions and integrating philosophical perspectives, conservation metrics can foster more ethical and effective outcomes.

Eliza Nobles.
Eliza Nobles.

This is a short summary of the journal article by Eliza Nobles, a Doctoral Candidate of Practical Philosophy in the Financial Ethics Research Group at University of Gothenburg.

Read the journal article The ethical foundations of biodiversity metrics >

Share this