[Taxacom] FW: Biodiversity and Species Value

[Neil Bell]

Of course I accept the distinctions you are making between scientific 
value judgments, other value judgments and the practical concerns of 
conservation in the real world, particularly the need for local 
involvement. Also the distinction between values (subjective) and 
priorities. As a systematist working within a restricted subset of total 
biodiversity and not directly involved with conservation, I'm just 
grateful that this work is being done and keen to make any any findings 
or perspectives available for use by conservationists where they might 
be useful. Were is the dividing line between valuing and quantifying, 
however? I think most people would accept that quantification, e.g. by 
species or habitat diversity, has to be relevant to conservation at some 
level, sometimes. Phylogenetic diversity can also be quantified, and is 
qualitatively no more subjective or value-laden than species diversity 
(which after all relies on abstract species circumscriptions). PD 
captures a critical aspect of biological diversity (one that most people 
respond to IME) that is completely omitted from the standard 
ecologically-derived hierarchy of biodiversity.


John Shuey wrote:
> I'll pluck some of Neil's text and add some divergent opinions from an applied conservation perspective.  
>
>   
>> I agree that ecosystem conservation has to be the priority and bow to
>> John Shuey's expertise, but I am disturbed by the apparent assertion
>> that phylogenetic diversity *of ecosystems* is irrelevant, and also the
>> implicit assumption that recent radiations of closely related,
>> morphologically similar taxa are more interesting than isolated,
>> relictual lineages.
>>     
>
>   
>> Of course all ecosystems should be conserved and that should always be
>> the ultimate goal, but surely it would be a tragedy if we lost the
>> ultrabasic maquis habitats of New Caledonia, the Fitzroya forests of
>> Patagonia or the remaining cloud forests of Borneo because resources and
>> attention were instead focused on other ecosystems that are equally
>> threatened but not nearly as distinctive (i.e. as different from other
>> ecosystems both absolute and in evolutionary-historical terms).
>>     
>
> So - three points here
>
> 1 - No doubt New Caledonia, Patagonia and Borneo are rich with unusual and primitive lineages - and these are highly valued by evolutionary biologists and taxonomists.  But like I said - value is subjective, and if we are making global judgments of value, we need global input.  How do we think subsistence farmers around the world would vote on ecosystem importance.  I'm guessing the Kalunga Community would vote for rock cerrado not New Caledonia forest.  Residents of Rio de Janeiro value the forests that supply their water (also happen to be reasonably species rich).   If we are prioritizing global decisions based on value - we had better get global assessments of value.  Trust me - New Caledonia won't make the cut when it comes to subjective global value if you factor in everyone else's subjective thoughts. 
>
> 2. Which brings me to  - successful conservation is local.  If you pull out the subjective valuation, and replace it with a vision of equal and critical value for biodiversity, then you can "exploit" local biases in value.  So create a global vision for success - but then use the Kalunga's love the cerrado (even though it is a tough place to live). As a community, they control the future of over 250,00ha of the best remaining. Talk to the people of Rio about how important their forests are directly to them - they just placed water use taxes on themselves to conserve the ecosystems they value most - those that provide them water! (this is in place in Sao Paulo and Quito as well)   Believe it or not, people in Indiana love their ecosystems too - and just yesterday we announced a State initiative to conserve over 95 miles of floodplain along one of the richest freshwater resources in the US - the Wabash River.  
>
> 3  If successful conservation is local - then local conservation has to fit into the global picture.  We pushed a US$20M project about 14 years ago to restore connectivity to a small swath (~12,00ha) of Indiana prairie and savanna.  I didn't preach things like "I know the cerrado is more important than our North American prairie, but let's do this anyway...  .  We pointed out that global conservation success requires that all ecosystems be conserved, and that right here in our back yard we can make a contribution that will have lasting impact on this global vision.   Likewise, Brasilians working to conserve Araucária forests, don't need to hear that their forest isn't nearly as primitive as... " - they already have their hands full and shouldn't have to explain away some scientific opinion.  Soya and cattle interests don't need additional tools to justify destroying the few remaining fragments.
>
> If New Caledonia is going to conserve its critical ecosystems (and I have to admit, I am totally ignorant about the status of conservation there), it will happen locally or not at all.  The people need to value their ecosystems enough to act, or force either France? or the local government to act appropriately.  While outside entities like the UN, World Bank or even an NGO might be able to "help" with resources -  successful conservation can't be implemented from the outside (plenty of paper parks can attest to the failure of this approach).
>
> To throw some shades of gray at this: 
>
> I actually do think it would be a huge loss if all these plesiomorphic lineages were lost.  But how I would inject my personal opinion into decisions that impact larger society  - that is where things get problematic.  Believe it or not, there are some groups that actually value my opinion - and the last thing I would want to do is introduce my biases, such that they make important decisions based on my personal whims.
>
> And prioritization base on urgency or threat is fine - but the key is that all representative sites need to be conserved.  To be clear - I honestly don't believe any one species is more important than another.  Unless of course we're talking about my favorite butterflies....
>
>
> John A Shuey, Ph.D.
> Director of Conservation Science
>
> jshuey at tnc.org
> 317.829.3898 - direct
> 317.951.8818 - front desk 
> 317.917.2478 - Fax 
>
> nature.org       The Nature Conservancy
> Indiana Field Office 
> 620 E. Ohio St.
> Indianapolis, IN 46202
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
>
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>
>
>   


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Neil E. Bell
Postdoctoral Researcher
(Bryophyte Systematics)
 
Botanical Museum
PO Box 7
00014 University of Helsinki
FINLAND
 
email: neil.bell at helsinki.fi
Skype: cryptopodium
SkypeIn : +44 131 2081898
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~