Ethical Debate: endangered species vs. ecosystems

Fellow blogger, David from WhySharksMatter, had an interesting post that I thought I would pass along: the ethical dilemma that develops when endangered species are re-located, between saving the species and protecting the ecosystem. Does the re-located endangered species become an invasive species? Does its re-location produce adverse effects in its new environment.

This ties in to the post I put up recently regarding the Desert Tortoise, where re-located tortoises were not necessarily impacting the new environment; rather the tortoises themselves were become victims of predators in their new environment. How can we avoid our "solutions" becoming part of the "problem"?

Here's David's post:

Ethical debate: endangered species vs. ecosystems

2009 August 23

tags: conservation, endangered species, ethical debate

by whysharksmatter

It’s been a long time since our last ethical debate, but I think you’ll all like this one.

At two different conferences I attended this summer, I heard about a hot new topic in the conservation movement. Biologists studying a variety of organisms, from plants to turtles, are debating this all over the world as we speak.

This new conservation technique is sometimes called “assisted migration”, “managed relocation”, and a variety of other names. Regardless of what you call it, the principle is the same. When an endangered species’ habitat is threatened, scientists simply round up all the members of that species that they can find and move them to a similar habitat elsewhere. Here’s the catch… the places where the endangered species are moved to are often NOT part of those species original range. In other words, we are intentionally introducing invasive species!

Though not necessarily always the case, for the sake of this ethical debate let’s assume that the following two statements are true.

1) Moving an endangered species to a new habitat WILL help the endangered species to survive.

2) Introducing new species to a habitat WILL disrupt the ecosystem of that habitat.

The ethical debate here is straightforward… is it morally right to save an endangered species by disrupting another ecosystem with an invasive species?

It is worth noting that as we are debating this on an academic level, it IS happening. Though there are many examples, one hits close to home. A conservation group known as the “Torreya Guardians” is taking what they call “the world’s most endangered conifer tree” and moving it from Florida… to the very forest where Andrew and I spent many happy weeks hiking while at Duke.

Nature: the ultimate oppressed group

Well, here in the U.S., the Independence Day holiday weekend is coming to a close. Canada had their Canada Day on the first of this month and many nations around the world celebrate important moments in their history wherein oppression was shed in favor of social or political harmony. Unfortunately, across the globe, there are still people living without the freedoms they deserve and hopefully they will someday reap those benefits.

But there is one group that is still oppressed on a daily basis, the results of which can and are having an impact on the entire planet, and that is the oppression of nature.

Mankind has yet to fully embrace the notion that we are a part of nature, not separate from it. Whether it's our own hubris in being the most "advanced" species on the planet (a debatable notion, for sure) or whether it's the result of religious dogma, man still persists in seeing things as "us and them," or shall I say "us and it." We have perverted the concept of dominion - meaning to protect - to become the worst form of domination, to control and take for our own self-interests. In doing so, we fail to appreciate the impact we have on nature and how nature can impact upon us.

Now this did not happen overnight. Man has taken this approach in the past for centuries but it is in the relatively recent present that we are now understanding the consequences by either actually seeing the drastic results or at least having a better knowledge of the intricacies of nature's web. We are now able to scientifically forecast a dire future if we do not take a different strategy sooner rather than later.

We are part of the little picture, the microcosms that might include the loss of a single plant or animal species, all the way up to the big picture, macrocosms that support our climate, the air we breathe, and the water we drink. We stand perhaps on the cusp of a global realization, that by denying our place within nature, we will certainly face issues that will dwarf all of our own self-interests - political, social, economic, or otherwise.

Nature evolves; it does so to perpetuate itself, to survive. Nature will make adjustments to the climate, the land and seas, the flora and fauna, in response to internal or external factors. And it does so very objectively; there are no favorites. So when we put nature in peril, we are actually putting ourselves in peril.

Now a fatalist might say, "Well, there's nothing we can do. If nature wants to take us out, it will. So you might as well enjoy the ride while you can." But perhaps it's my own human arrogance that says, "No, our fate is what we make." Mankind is the oppressor but it can be the steward, helping itself by helping nature; being a part of nature rather than against it.

Or for you sports fans, here's a metaphor: like it or not, we are part of the ultimate team . . . and the coach is watching. I'd like to survive the next round of cuts. How about you?

Putting A Price On Nature: WWF starts new project to aid conservation

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is one of the largest conservation organizations with a broad range of interests and projects ranging from conservation of endangered species like tigers, gorillas, and rhinos to big picture issues like this one: putting a price on nature.

In essence this is a bit similar to the carbon credits concept that has been bounced around of late. Basically, the WWF is looking at the relationships between human society and nature, where ecosystems support economic development in a variety of ways; and then establish an economic model where those who benefit from the ecosystem would compensate those whose responsibility it would be to maintain the ecosystem. Well, here's an excerpt from their web site to explain it further:

Natural Capital: Putting a Price on Nature

By Dr. Taylor Ricketts

Sometimes pushing the limits of conservation means changing our perspective on a problem or challenging established assumptions. Doing so can unlock whole new approaches to conservation and lead to waves of success on the ground.

Assumption: Conservation and economic development are by nature at odds - a family can either earn money off their land or set it aside for conservation. With colleagues at Stanford University and The Nature Conservancy, we decided to turn this assumption on its head: What if people could be rewarded for conserving their land through payments from other people who value the "ecosystem services" that land provides? Could those who use the water that is cleaned when it flows through wetlands pay the owners of the wetlands to conserve that ecosystem? How cool would that be? That's how the Natural Capital Project was born.

To be fair, the concept of ecosystem services - and payments - has been around for a while. The goal our three organizations now share is to make them an operational force for conservation. We have set up experimental sites - in China, Tanzania, the Mesoamerican Reef, California and Hawaii - to test valuing ecosystem services in explicit economic terms. Some say it is politically dangerous to put a price tag on nature; others say it can't be done. Both could be true, but we believe the venture is worth the risk, as the rewards could be huge.

In Tanzania's Eastern Arc Mountains. Ancient forests here sustain thousands of species unique to the area. They give birth to half a dozen rivers providing water and electricity to more than 4 million people. Local villagers depend on the forest for firewood, medicinal plants, building materials and food. But in recent decades over 70 percent of the forest has been destroyed by logging, fires and farmland conversion. River flows have declined, interfering with hydropower and leading to increasingly frequent rolling blackouts in Tanzania's capital, Dar es Salaam. In short, the links between nature and human well-being are as tightly forged here as anywhere on Earth.

My WWF colleague Dr. Neil Burgess and I are working with international researchers, local experts and decision makers to calculate the forest's economic value to local, national, and global populations. With funding from the Packard Foundation and the Leverhulme Trust, we're creating maps that plot the value of ecosystem services including carbon sequestration, water purification, flood control, crop pollination, and harvested forest products. Only a few months into a five-year project, we've hit the ground running. Teams are in the field collecting data on water purification, carbon sequestration and timber. By the time you read this, we'll have met with leading decision makers to ensure our research is as useful as possible. In early 2008 we'll use the data and software we're now developing to publish our first maps. We already see clear political support and interest in using our products: The Tanzanian government has commissioned a task force on ecosystem services, based in part on the technical advice Neil has provided them for years. The Natural Capital Project is simply the most exciting initiative I've been involved with at WWF. Combining powerful research with strong and immediate application, we aim to break new intellectual ground and achieve big conservation results. It is experimental, with all the uncertainties that go along with any experiment. But we have the right partners, wonderful support from our leaders, and a powerful idea: making conservation economically attractive.

You can learn more about this and other WWF projects by visiting their web site, one of the most comprehensive in the conservation field.