Toward a biocultural theory of avoided extinction

We contend that biocultural approaches to conservation can achieve effective and just conservation outcomes while addressing erosion of both cultural and biological diversity. Here, we propose a set of guidelines for the adoption of biocultural approaches to conservation. First, we draw lessons from work on biocultural diversity and heritage, social–ecological systems theory, integrated conservation and development, co-management, and community-based conservation to define biocultural approaches to conservation. Second, we describe eight principles that characterize such approaches. Third, we discuss reasons for adopting biocultural approaches and challenges. If used well, biocultural approaches to conservation can be a powerful tool for reducing the global loss of both biological and cultural diversity.

Nature Sustainability, 2019

Biodiversity is being lost at an unprecedented rate, making the conservation movement of critical importance for life on Earth. However, recent debates over the future of conservation have been polarised, acrimonious and dominated by an unrepresentative demographic group. The views of the wider global conservation community on fundamental questions regarding what, why and how to conserve are unknown. Here we characterise the views of 9,264 conservationists from 149 countries, identifying specific areas of consensus and disagreement, and three independent dimensions of conservation thinking. The first two dimensions ('people-centred conservation' and 'science-led ecocentrism') have widespread support, whereas 'conservation through capitalism' is more contentious. While conservationists' views on these three dimensions do not fall into distinct clusters, there are clear relationships between dimension scores and respondents' gender, age, educational background, career stage and continent of nationality. Future debates and policy processes should focus on the most contentious issues, and do more to include the perspectives of under-represented groups in conservation who may not share the views of those in more powerful positions. Main text Conservation is at a crossroads. Biodiversity loss is widely recognised as having serious consequences, but despite decades of effort in policy and site specific interventions, extinction rates remain high 1,2. The Convention on Biological Diversity 2010 goal to achieve "a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss" was not achieved, and there is no indication that the CBD Aichi targets for 2020 will be met 3. Against this backdrop, negotiations are underway for the post 2020 Biodiversity Framework of the CBD, which will set the global conservation agenda for at least a decade to come. There is widespread agreement that conservation needs to be more bold and ambitious, and to find more effective implementation measures 4,5. However, setting the future direction of conservation is hampered by the existence of various competing proposals which diverge on fundamental questions about why, what and how to conserve 4,6-9. Two positions in particular have been prominent in recent debates. Proponents of 'new conservation' argue for protecting biodiversity because of its importance to people, and emphasise partnerships with corporations, the natural capital approach, and the use of market-based tools such as payments for ecosystem services 6,10,11. Meanwhile advocates of 'traditional conservation' reject these views, arguing instead for the protection of nature for its own sake and emphasising state-based protected areas and regulation 7,12,13. This latter position is associated with calls for the radical expansion of protected area coverage targets in the post 2020 CBD framework to at least 50% of the terrestrial and marine realms 5,8,9. The 'new conservation' debate has dominated conservation thinking for several years, creating the impression of a stark choice to be made about the future of conservation. However, the debate has been critiqued in various ways. First, for recasting as 'new' what are in fact long-standing disagreements in conservation 11,14,15 over underlying rationales (such as ecocentrism and anthropocentrism) 16,17 , the role of market based approaches and economic valuation 18,19 , and the relationship between conservation and development 14,20. Second, for falsely suggesting there are only two perspectives, leaving out important alternative views on conservation, such as a 'critical social science' view which favours conservation for the benefit of people but disagrees with the use of market based approaches 4,21,22. Third, for under-representing the diversity of voices in the wider conservation community, because the main protagonists of the 'new conservation' debate are from an unrepresentative demographic group of North Americans who hold senior positions 23. Fourth, for being conducted in an excessively acrimonious and hostile tone 24,25. Addressing these critiques and moving the debate forwards requires empirical evidence on the views of the wider conservation community. However, at present these views remain unknown, beyond studies of specific issues such as coexistence with carnivores 26. Here, we report the findings of an online survey of 9,264 conservation practitioners and academics from 149 countries (Supplementary Figure 1). This is the largest published survey of the professional conservation community, responding directly to calls for conservationists to carefully identify their views and values, and to express them explicitly 14,27. Respondents indicated their level of agreement with 38 Likert items that were designed to assess their views on the issues raised within the new conservation debate, such as the underlying rationales for conservation, how goals should be set and the appropriateness of various tools to achieve those goals (Figure 1; see Methods for details). Respondents also provided information on their gender, age, educational background, career stage and continent of nationality (Supplementary Table 1). The survey was distributed via relevant listservs and through social media channels, targeted to encompass a range of ages and seniority (e.g. postgraduate and early career lists), disciplines (e.g. conservation social science, ecology specialist lists) and geographical locations (continent and country specific lists). The survey was then circulated organically amongst networks of conservation professionals and through social media such as Twitter and Facebook. Areas of consensus and polarization We found high levels of consensus among our respondents on multiple survey items, but also important areas with high levels of polarization (Figure 1; Supplementary Figure 2). As might be expected, the strongest consensus was in agreement that the maintenance of biodiversity and ecosystem processes should be goals of conservation.

Biodiversity and Conservation, 2013

Biodiversity conservation is not a clear-cut practice and there is no blueprint solution to the question how to best halt the loss of biological diversity. Various conservation approaches are surrounded by a variety of basic assumptions about the world, nature and the human-nature relationship. These assumptions are more often implicitly hidden in practices and discourse than purposefully produced and deployed at a conscious level. The aim of our paper is to contribute to the on-going discussion on how to halt the loss of biodiversity in a dynamic global socio-ecological system. We will present an analysis of the worldview(s) and management style(s) of the oldest and largest global conservation organization: the International Union of Nature Conservation (IUCN). Popular in many conservation organisations is the strategy of integrating conservation in policy, business and society. Our discourse analysis demonstrates that although IUCN employs a strongly pluralistic practice of conservation, it is difficult to speak of a truly integrative approach yet.

Environment and Society, 2010

The concept of extinction is at the heart of the modern conservation movement, and massive resources have been spent on developing models and frameworks for quantifying and codifying a phenomenon that has been described by American researcher and naturalist Edward O. Wilson as an obscure and local biological process. Scientists, environmentalists, and politicians have repeatedly used extinction rhetoric as a core justification for a global conservation agenda that seeks to influence a wide range of human activities despite the inherent difficulty and uncertainty involved in estimating current and future rates of extinction, or even in verifying the demise of a particular species. In this article we trace the historical origins of the extinction concept and discuss its power to influence policies, agendas, and behaviors. We argue that conservation needs to develop a more culturally meaningful rhetoric of extinction that aligns scientific evidence, cultural frames, institutional frameworks, and organizational interests.

Oryx, 2004