Content uploaded by Helen Kopnina
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Helen Kopnina on Nov 07, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Discussion
Half the earth for people (or more)? Addressing ethical questions in
conservation
Helen Kopnina
Institute Cultural Anthropology and Development Sociology, Faculty Social and Behavioural Sciences, Leiden University, Wassenaarseweg 52, 2300 RB, Leiden, The Netherlands
abstractarticle info
Article history:
Received 28 June 2016
Received in revised form 2 September 2016
Accepted 18 September 2016
Available online xxxx
Preservingglobal biodiversity depends upon designating many more large terrestrial and marine areas as strictly
protected areas. Yet recent calls for addressing biodiversity loss by setting aside more protected areas have been
met with hostility from somesocial scientists andeven some conservationbiologists. The mainobjections against
the so-called 'nature needs half' movement include the following. First, setting aside protected areas implies that
some vulnerable human communities will be displaced to make space for wildlife. Second, separating humans
from their environment ignores the fact that humans have always been part of the environments around
them, and creates a false dichotomy between nature and culture. Third, conservationists are said to put the
blame for biodiversity loss on all humanity, rather than on those who are doing most of the damage. Fourth,
many social justice proponents argue that human population growth is not related to biodiversity loss or other
sustainability challenges. This article critically addresses these four objections, exposing their robust anthropo-
centric bias. Protectedarea critics reliablydemand fairness for humanbeings at the expense of nonhuman beings,
who they treat as morallyinconsequential. But justiceis not only about justus. Conservationproperly understood
implies a fair division of Earth's resources between human and nonhuman beings. Justice demands setting aside
at least half Earth's lands and seas for nature, free from intensive economic activities.
© 2016 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1. Introduction: ethical debates about conservation
Habitat destruction, invasive species, pollution, population increase
and over-harvesting (HIPPO) have all intensified in the past few de-
cades to the point of causing severe biodiversity crisis (CBD). The
World Wildlife Fund's Living Planet Report (WWF, 2014) testifies to in-
tensifying threats to natural systems based on evidence of mass extinc-
tions in the last few decades. The Living Planet Index (WWF, 2014),
which measures more than 10,000 representative populations of mam-
mals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish, has declined by 52 per cent
since 1970. Put another way, in less than two human generations, pop-
ulation sizes of vertebrate species have dropped by half. As Funk (2014)
has stated: “In an Anthropocene ofradical climate change and accelerat-
ing species extinctions, nothing less than a grand vision of what might
yet be achieved will bring about the preservation of our remaining un-
spoiled landscapes”.
Edward O. Wilson, a well-known biologist and author, has recently
published an opinion blog called Half Earth. This blog calls for allocating
“half the world for humanity, half for the rest of life”(Wilson 2016a).
This aim follows the moral duty to stop the sixth extinction and the ex-
istential threat to the planet that sustains our own species (Wilson
1985, 1993, 2016b). Wilson's blog reflects the calls of conservationists,
biologists and other academics and practitioners supporting the ‘Nature
needs at least half’movement (http://natureneedshalf.org), arisen in
the early 1990's out of interrelated scientific and ethical concerns. The
idea of ‘half’comes from research of Noss (1992) and Noss and
Cooperrider (1994), further developed by Terborgh (1999),Svancara
et al. (2005) Estes et al. (2011) and Funk (2014). This research provides
evidence that in most regions 25–75% (thus, on average 50%) or the es-
timate that 1/3 to 2/3 of every region would need strict protection to
maintain full biodiversity (Noss, 1992). The literature on the oceans in-
dicates that 30–40% should protect all marine biodiversity by a comfort-
able margin (e.g. Roberts, 2007). While small fragmented habitats can
sustain smaller species of plants, animals and other biota (e.g. Turner
& Corlett, 1996), accommodating larger animals, including apex preda-
tors such as tigers or sharks, requires a larger territory (Noss, 1992;
Soulé & Noss, 1998).
Rewilding, and strict environmental protection precluding human
interference is described as one of the most efficient and effective mea-
sures of conservation (e.g. Fraser, 2009). The term rewilding was initial-
ly popularized by conservationists Soulé and Noss (1998) to describe a
strategy of wilderness conservation that can be summarised as cores
(healthy ecosystems need large carnivores), corridors and carnivores
(large carnivores need connected big road-less areas). The rewilding
movement is driven by the realization that biodiversity refers to ecosys-
tems formed through natural, not artificial, processes and seeks to
Biological Conservation 203 (2016) 176–185
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.09.019
0006-3207/© 2016 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Biological Conservation
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bioc
return environment to self-sufficiency characterizing the pre human-
impacted state (Foreman, 1991, 2011; Wuerthner et al., 2014).
Rewilding involves the reintroduction of animals, plants, and fungi to
environments from which they have been excised in order to rehabili-
tate ecosystems (e.g. Foreman, 1991, 2004). The Wildlands Network,
for example, calls for a North American system of connected cores that
will sustain healthy and ecologically effective populations of all native
species and allow for all ecological processes to operate unencumbered.
However, rewilding and strict conservation policies have evoked a
storm of criticism. The ethical battle that has issued after the publication
of Wilson's blog is instructive in underlining the moral concerns of both
the proponents and opponents of strict conservation. The most notable
rebuttal of Wilson's blog was written by Robert Fletcher and Bram
Büscher (2016), both of the University of Wageningen in The
Netherlands. Their criticism involves a number of stances discussed in
the other published work by the authors (e.g. Büscher, 2015; Büscher
et al., 2012; Fletcher, 2009, 2014; Fletcher et al., 2014, 2015) and by
other critics of conservation. In this article, “conservation critics”will
refer to broad groups including some conservationists (particularly
eco-modernists andnew conservation scientists) as well associal scien-
tists (particularly, political ecologists, social geographers and environ-
mental anthropologists) and social justice activists whose stances will
be explicated below.
First, Fletcher and Büscher (2016) have stated that “Most existing
‘wilderness’parks have required the removal or severe restriction of
human beings within their bounds”. This statement is based in a
wider critique that setting aside protection areas displaces the most vul-
nerable human communities (e.g. Brockington, 2002; Gabon, 2008;
Corry, 2011). Critical scholars advocate the local communities' entitle-
ment to the natural resources and ecosystem services and the right to
remain in protected areas retaining traditional practices such as hunting
(e.g. Chapin, 2004; Brockington et al., 2008; Holmes, 2013; Duffy, 2014;
Fletcher et al., 2015).
Second, it is argued that setting humans aside from nature ignores
the fact that communities have always been part of and have changed
environments around them (Fairhead & Leach 1996; Posey 1998). Si-
multaneously, conservation movement is described as a view that ro-
manticizes the “glorious unbroken landscape of biological diversity”
(West & Brockington, 2012:2). Supposedly, this romantic view achieves
separation between humans and nature “physically, through protected
areas…and ideologically, through massive media campaigns that focus
on blamingindividuals for global environmental destruction”(Ibid). In-
stead, the critics contend, the real enemy is the romantic ideal of nature
itself, as it represents ‘capitalist imaginary’(Fletcher et al., 2015) con-
structed by neo-colonial, elitist, western conservationists (e.g. Büscher
et al., 2012; Büscher, 2015).
Third, ‘fortress conservation’(Brockington, 2002) is said to put the
blame for biodiversity loss on all humanity, rather than the most pow-
erful fractions of it that are disproportionately profiting from nature ex-
ploitation (Chapin, 2004; Holmes, 2013; West & Brockington, 2012;
Fletcher et al., 2014). Fletcher and Büscher (2016) state, “the world is
riven by dramatic inequality, and different segments of humanity have
vastly different impacts on the world's environments. The blame for
our ecological problems therefore cannot be spread across some notion
of a generalised ‘humanity’”. Critics also maintain that strict anti-
poaching measures violate human rights, once again scapegoating vul-
nerable communities whose ecological impact is negligible (Duffy,
2014; Büscher, 2015).
Fourth, it is argued that when it comes to environmental problems,
including biodiversity loss, human population growth has no relevance
to ecological sustainability (Fletcher et al., 2014). Noting that the re-
maining high-fertility problem spots are countries with some of the
world's lowest incomes, Fletcher & Büscher (2016) conclude that “par-
adoxically, then, it is those consuming the least that are considered the
greatest problem”. Summing these points, the critics assert that Half-
Earth would be a “profoundly inhumane”(Fletcher & Büscher, 2016).
Although all four of these objections may have some validity, as re-
minders to treat human beings justly, they falter because they neglect
the need to treat nonhuman beings justly. Turning the tables, this article
asks conservation critics to examine their own notions of justice, equal-
ity and equity. The following sections will address each of the four crit-
icisms by invoking principles of ecological justice (see Ehrenfeld, 1978
and more recently Baxter, 2005 and Higgins, 2010) and animal rights
(see Singer, 1977 and for emergent field of animal law, see Peters,
2016). A concluding section will seek points of convergence between
proponents of social justice and ecological justice, and outline an inte-
grated vision for a truly just conservation movement.
2. Rebuttal of anti-conservation arguments
2.1. The question of displacement
First, there is a question of displacing vulnerable communities from
protected areas, and the accusation that it is particularly poor people
and indigenous communities that suffer the consequences of this dis-
placement. In response to this it needs to be noted that certainly not
all protected nature areas are found in developing world, but in large
countries such as Russia, Greenland and Australia (CBD). The over-
whelming majority of the world's poor do not live near wilderness but
in degraded agrarian areas or urban slums (UN, 2015). In fact, most dis-
placements in recenthistory were hardly caused by conservation agen-
cies but by large industrial or agricultural projects and the system of
‘industrocentrism’(Kidner, 2014) which threatens both cultural and bi-
ological diversity (Sponsel, 2016).
Conservationists have pointed out that most of conservation is al-
ready targeted toward human welfare, particularly in developing coun-
tries, often combined with economic development, explicitly leaning
towards enhancing community welfare (e.g. Oates, 1999; Kareiva
et al., 2011). It was noted that in many cases poverty elevation goes
hand in hand with environmental restoration (Goodall, 2015)a
s
healthy ecosystems are vital to sustainable agriculture, livelihood en-
hancement and resilience in the face of climate change (Fitzgerald,
2015). Indeed, rewilding of formerly developed areas and limiting eco-
nomic activities within all protected areas is necessary not only to max-
imize biodiversity conservation (Foreman, 2004), but also to benefit
environmental restoration to sustain long term survival of all species,
including humans (Doak et al., 2015). Conservation provides livelihood
to millionsof people living next to protected areas, either through tradi-
tional natural resource use, or through engagement in more capitalist
activities such as eco-tourism (Goodall, 2015). As noted by Doak et al.
(2015), consideration of human well-being in conservation decisions
does not require a radical departure from current practices, as humans
have always and still do widely benefitfromnaturethatisnot
destroyed, depleted or polluted. Thus,
“The Half-Earth solution does not mean dividing the planet into
hemispheric halves or any other large pieces the size of continents or
nation-states. Nor does it require changing ownership of any of the
pieces, but instead only the stipulation that they be allowed to exist un-
harmed. It does, on the other hand, mean setting aside the largest re-
serves possible for nature, hence for the millions of other species still
alive”(Wilson 2016a).
By contrast, some new conservation scientists and political ecolo-
gists argue that the moral imperative of conservation should be
human welfare, abandoning the pursuit of biodiversity protection
based on intrinsic values of nature argument, and seeking to “enhance
those natural systems that benefit the widest number of people.”
(Kareiva et al., 2011). This position “restricts the focus of conservation
to the advancement of human well-being, which it frequently conflates
with narrow definitions of economic development, and thereby mar-
ginalizes efforts to preservediverse and naturalecosystems or to protect
nature for aesthetic or other noneconomic benefits to humans”(Doak
et al., 2015:30). Indeed, due to the increasing emphasis on poverty
177H. Kopnina / Biological Conservation 203 (2016) 176–185
alleviation amonginternational donors and aid organizations, anydirect
confrontation between poverty alleviation and conservation, advocates
of poverty alleviation are likely to get greater attention (Agrawal &
Redford, 2009:10). In this context, displacement of poor communities
is seen as morally abhorrent, while the very termination of not only
presently lived lives, but future generations of nonhumans are simply
ignored. The “elephant in the room”is the dead elephant. It is possible
that whole elephant species or subspecies may be exterminated in the
wild if every territorial dispute or human-wildlife conflict is resolved
in favor of local communities (Kopnina, 2016a).
Wilson (2016a, 2016b) is not calling for the displacement of indige-
nous communities from the lands to be protected but rather for their re-
cruitment into conservation roles. He agrees that traditional indigenous
societies have often been the best custodians of their environments, so
such societies would not be excluded from the protected areas. Under
specified conditions, other forms of sustainable human activity could
also be allowed. The real threat is the rhetoric of industrial sustainable
development that turns land into industrial or agricultural production
sites, with the cult of economic growth displacing, both physically and
spiritually, the very possibility of life in an ecologically sustainable
world.
As currently conceived, ‘sustained and inclusive economic growth’
(UN, 2015) posits itself as a panacea for unsustainability challenges,
such as poverty, health, mortality, and climate change (Kopnina,
2016b). Yet, as critical scholars have noted, sustained and inclusive eco-
nomic growth is likely to lead to deeper ecological crisis which will in
turn affect the most vulnerable populations (e.g. Daly, 1991;
Washington, 2015). While the evidence of the impact of protected
areas on local communities worldwide is highly variable (Wilkie et al.,
2006), moral denunciations of detrimental effects of protected areas
seem to be ideologically motivated judging by the “shrill rhetoric of
the fortress critique, along with the intimidating high moral ground of
human rights it professes”(Crist, 2015:93). Indeed, what is occurring
on the large scale is displacement ofboth human and nonhuman popu-
lations inthe quest for industrialdevelopment. Butit is often the vulner-
able human communities that get most public sympathy as (Agrawal
and Redford, 2009).
While the largest human displacement had occurred due to agri-
cultural and urban expansion, in the case of displacement to create
protection areas there remains a crucial query as to whether anyone,
advantaged or disadvantaged, has the right to prioritize their own in-
terests to the extent that those of the non-human are deemed expend-
able (Strang, 2016). Can being “indigenous”confer an exclusive moral
right to use ‘natural resources’, even if using these ‘resources’leads to
the extinction of nonhuman species? The just answer is “no.”In prior-
itizing human welfare in often overt economic terms, it is unclear
whose side the critics of the ‘elites’are actually on. Conservation, in
ideal terms, is not about capital accumulation, but about biodiversity
loss.
Also, crucially, we need to ponder who is really being displaced. Con-
sidering that early human populations have spread from Africa into
areas already occupied by a rich biota, it is debatable whether either ‘in-
digenous’or the more recentsettlers into the ‘new world’have a rightto
colonize and claim pre-eminence over other species in areas they mi-
grate to. This type of displacement simply eradicates resident communi-
ties of wildlife by destroying their habitat (Fitzgerald, 2015)–without
compensation and without any discussion of animal rights (Peters,
2016)or‘earth rights’(Higgins, 2010). This type of displacement can
only be attributed to a “human-nonhuman apartheid regime”that has
“legitimated our self-consigned prerogative to occupy, use, displace,
and eradicate the natural world at will”(Crist, 2015:90). The query
“who gains and who loses from compensated displacement from
protected areas”(Rantala et al., 2013) is not concerned with ‘compensa-
tion’for non-humans. Instead of realizing thisgreat injustice, the“strict-
ly protected areas are scapegoated, and wild nature, once again, is
targeted to take the fall for the purported betterment of people, while
domination and exploitation of nature remain unchallenged”(Crist,
2015:93).
2.2. Separating humans from their environment
Second, it is argued that humans have been interacting with natural
environments and changing them for many thousands of years and are
thus ‘part of nature’(Fairhead and Leach, 1996; Gorenflo et al., 2012;
Sponsel, 2013). Conservation critics argue that conservationists and en-
vironmentalists willfully perpetuate the dichotomy between humans
and nature by presenting humans as enemies (e.g. Brockington et al.,
2008; Büscher et al., 2012; Nonini, 2013) while ‘romancing the wild’
(Fletcher, 2014). The charge of romanticism is levelled against the sug-
gestion that there is a morally correct way for humans to live in and
with nature and that indigenous peoples often instantiated this ideal.
Indeed, in the past, many indigenous populations have preserved tradi-
tional ecological knowledge that allowed them to manage their
environments well, at times possibly contributing to forest increase
and local biodiversity (e.g. Fairhead & Leach, 1996; Posey, 1998). As
Gorenflo et al. (2012: 8037) state, biological and cultural diversity are
closely interlinked: ‘the tendency for both to be high in particular re-
gions suggests that certain cultural systems and practices…tend to be
compatible with high biodiversity’. Indeed, ‘[w]ildernesses have often
contained sparse populations of people, especially those indigenous
for centuries or millennia, without losing their essential character’
(Wilson, 2016a). Assuming that the indigenous people are the best
guardians of their environment (Sandall, 2000), it was argued that
protecting indigenous sacred places can ‘simultaneously help protect
cultures, religions, and rights as well as the associated biotic species,
ecosystems, and ecological processes”(Sponsel, 2016:135).
Yet, the reification of ‘traditional cultures’as ‘noble’(e.g. Koot, 2016),
and the “romantic insistence on the superiority of the primitive”
(Sandall, 2000:1) lacks realization that indigenous people are ‘rarely
isolated from global market forces’(Pountney, 2012:215), and that the
scope of ‘traditional’activities has greatly expanded due to demographic
pressures and technology. Simply, when the number of people in-
creases, this leads to an increased demand for food; “but the wildlife
in a set area does not tend to increase, its numbers remain steady and
thus so must the harvest if it is to be sustainable’(Sinclair, 2015: 77).
Thus, while the critics imply that conservationists perpetuate the ideal
of ‘wilderness’, they tend to reify local communities as ‘untouched’by
the logic of capitalist development.
Ironically, on other occasions the critics fully embrace the capitalist
logic that views of nature as a commodity, using the very vocabulary
of the power-holders they criticize in speaking of the ‘market value of
lost physical assets’(Rantala et al., 2013:99). Simultaneously with ideal-
izing the local communities, the heralding of the Anthropocene has pre-
cipitated a new wave of “post-nature”critique that openly or subtly
celebrates human dominion, technocratic administration and a mana-
gerial approach to domesticating the “global garden”(Wuerthner
et al., 2014). Fletcher (2009:178–179) reflects: ‘So what we need is to
eliminate the distinction between the wild and tame entirely, to realize
that the “wild”is a human idea, that it has never truly existed as an ob-
jective reality, and that, in the final analysis, it has caused us more harm
than good.’Thus, it is reasoned, ‘…we find ourselves confronted with a
counterintuitive truth: As long as we need wilderness we will never be
free’(Fletcher, 2009:179). The idea of reconciling the wild and the tame
(Fletcher, 2014), manifests itself in a “rambunctious garden”metaphor
(Marris, 2011). This metaphor implies that there is no difference be-
tween, for example, the naturally occurring blossoming of cacti in the
Arizona desert and the artificially maintained ‘ecosystem’of imported
palm trees and generously watered and cropped lawns that unnaturally
freckle Phoenix, the state capital (Shoreman-Ouimet & Kopnina, 2016).
While conservation critics argue that nature is socially constructed –
both in linguistic andpractical terms (e.g. Cronon, 1996; Fletcher, 2009,
2014; West & Brockington, 2012), they construct the humans as
178 H. Kopnina / Biological Conservation 203 (2016) 176–185
creators or managers of nature (Ehrenfeld, 1988). Yet, nature has not
been constructed by humans and has been there much longer than
our species (Kidner, 2014). The trouble with wilderness is not that it is
imagined by elitist environmentalists, as Cronon (1996) and Fletcher
& Büscher (2016) would have it, but that it is rapidly being destroyed.
Thus, the accusation that environmentalists create a human/nature
dichotomyis unfair. Within the land ethics or deep ecology perspective
there is no place for the dualistic vision of nature and culture (Leopold,
1949; Devall & Session, 1985; Naess & Rothenberg, 1989; Kopnina,
2015). In fact, most bioethical theories resituate humankind within a
world mutually composed of and by human and non-human agents
and agentive processes (Strang, 2016). It can be argued, however, that
humans have set themselves apart from nature with agricultural and
later industrial development, which marked the beginning of conquest
and control, of stepping outside of natural environments in order to
dominate them (Johnson & Earle, 2000; Henley, 2011; Kidner, 2014).
Here we enter a dangerous terrain, and the need to recognize the
logical consequences of deconstructing dichotomies (Kopnina, 2016d).
If there were no dichotomy between humans and environment in
legal terms, environmental protection would not be controversial but
widely accepted as just and fair. Humane treatment and protection
from exploitation and abuse of animals (e.g. Singer, 1977; Peters,
2016) would be respected in the same way as human rights.
This leads us to one of the salient points regarding dichotomies
discussed by Kopnina (2016a) and raised by an anonymous reviewer
of this manuscript. Both deep ecology conservationists and eco-
modernist conservationists reject human/nature dualism but do so for
different reasons, drawing diametrically opposed ethical conclusions
from their opposition to it. The reason some conservation critics argue
that humans are part of nature is to show that, asproducts of evolution,
whatever we do in and to the biosphere is natural. In other words, the
human co-optation of the biosphere then becomes unobjectionable, as
any other phase of evolution. If humans disturb ecologies, or introduce
new ‘artificial’elements into them, including road pavements and vehi-
cles that routinely turn millions of nonhuman ‘trespassers’into the neu-
tral category of roadkill, this is just nature ‘disturbing’itself. It logically
follows than that if human beings were part of nature there is no reason
to insist upon the detrimental role of human communities. Humans re-
main 'parts of nature' no matter what they do
1
.
By contrast, the deep ecology and land ethics idea of unity with na-
ture requires recognition of integrity of ecosystems and a certain bal-
ance of needs (Leopold, 1949; Naess, 1973), which can be interpreted
in terms of interspecies egalitarianism or equity (Baxter, 2005). If the
questions of interspecies equity were taken seriously, the planet
would need to be divided on the basis of species’natural resource re-
quirements (e.g. Noss, 1992; Mathews, 2016), and not on the basis of
what one single species proclaims to be its entitlement. Thus, the issue
at stake is not so much whether humans are part of nature or not –of
course they are –but whether their influence endangers all other ele-
ments of nature. After all, Ebola virus is part of nature as well, yet it is
questionable whether the spreadof its population and influence should
be welcomed by other species.
2.3. Who is to blame for the damage?
Third, there is the argument that conservationists fail to realize that
“different segments of humanity have vastly different impacts on the
world's environments”(Fletcher & Büscher, 2016). The concomitant ar-
gument is that conservationists should stop blaming humanity as a
whole but realize that their own idea of ‘wilderness’is nothing more
than a romantic ideal of dominant elites (Cronon, 1996; Fletcher, 2009).
According to the critics the real perpetuators of injustice are conservation
organizations themselves. The critics argue that environmentalism ‘went
south’and established itself in the recently decolonized nations and while
there, ‘got snugly in bed with its old enemy, corporate capitalism’(West &
Brockington, 2012:2). The critics see large conservation NGO's as closely
aligned with economic development agencies and other power holders
that profit from conservation (e.g. Brockington et al., 2008; Büscher
et al., 2012; West & Brockington, 2012; Claus & Freeman, 2016).
Most conservationists and environmentalists will not deny the de-
structive reach of industrial elites. Environmentalists such as Crist
(2015) have clearly stated that economic growth is one of the most sig-
nificant causes of unsustainability and indeed, disappearance of habitats
and species. It is a well-known maxim that if all of us lived as Western
consumers right now, we will need a few planet earths to satisfy our
consumption needs, 2008). But while the destructive reach of the afflu-
ent is globally profound, that of the poor is more localized, involving de-
forestation for subsistence agriculture and fuel (e.g. Oates, 1999), and
overhunting for bushmeat, leading to the ‘empty forest syndrome’
(Redford, 1992; Peterson, 2013; Crist & Cafaro, 2012).
2
Fletcher and Büscher (2016) chose to illustrate their opinion piece
by an image of an armed white ranger leaning threateningly over the
black poacher –an image evoking colonial associations in the ‘war to
save biodiversity’(Duffy, 2014; Büscher, 2015). They forget to mention
the war against the most vulnerable communities –those of non-
human species and those that protect them (Shoreman-Ouimet &
Kopnina, 2015). The argument that anti-poaching measures violate
human rights completely excludes the rights of nonhumans, even the
most endangered ones. Laying the blame for violations of human or in-
digenous rights on conservationists tends to depoliticize the need for
legal protection not just for nonhumans, but also for their advocates.
Grass-roots support for environmental protection and/or animal
rights is known worldwide with committed individuals sacrificing
their lives to protect habitats and various forms of life they sustain
(Kopnina, 2015; Shoreman-Ouimet & Kopnina, 2016). Among them
are Latin American (Fears, 2016a), African and Asian environmental ac-
tivists (Global Witness, 2014; Lakhani, 2014; Fears, 2016b). In fact,
Western neoliberal apparatus has no monopoly on either environmen-
tal conservation or environmentalism (Sponsel, 2016). Environmental-
ist action by individuals is cross-cultural, despite severe repercussions,
demonstrating that commitment to environmental causes is a universal
rather than uniquelyWestern phenomenon (e.g.Foreman, 1991; Kellert
and Wilson, 1995; Wilson, 1993 and 2016b; Kopnina, 2015).
The ‘war’in conservation is often not between the colonialist elites
and impoverished individuals driven to hunt out of despair, but between
well-organized and heavily armed poachers, using equipment ranging
from helicopters to advanced weaponry and often operating as part of in-
ternational criminal cartels, and those who are trying to protect
nonhumans (Goodall, 2015).Analternativeimagewouldbeamemorial
wall portraying environmental activists killed by poachers (https://
vimeo.com/28701717), from Joy Adamson and Joan Root in Kenya to
1
Thus, theclaim that “humansare part of nature”shows that this formulationis not suf-
ficiently precise. The term, 'nature', does not adequately designate the intended object of
conservation. Fromthe deep ecology perspective, humansare not morally privilegedin re-
lation to nature, nor arethey morally entitled to co-optall natural resourcesfor their own
use but mustshare those resources equitably with otherspecies. Reserving some areasex-
clusively for the use of non-human species is then consistent with the non-dualist stance
of deep ecology which privileges integrity of whole ecosystems and not necessarily indi-
vidual species. In this framing, removal of people from protected areas need not be con-
strued as dualist - it is just the administration of non-dualism in a world already morally
skewed in favour of humans. On the otherhand, if indigenous communities would prefer
to remain in those areas while maintaining traditional livelihoods, and if it can be shown
that theirpresence would indeednot be detrimental to ecological integrity, reconciliation
may be possible.
2
http://www.cites.org/eng/news/pr/2011/20110610_bushmeat.shtml
179H. Kopnina / Biological Conservation 203 (2016) 176–185
Berta Cáceres in Honduras, to Jairo Mora Sandoval in Costa Rica, to Chut
Wutty in Cambodia. As an American environmental activist William C.
Rodgers, convicted for his role in the Earth Liberation Front wrote in his
suicide note:
To my friends and supporters to help them make sense of all these
events that have happened so quickly: Certain human cultures have
been waging war against the Earth for millennia. I chose to fight on
the side of bears, mountain lions, skunks, bats, saguaros, cliff rose
and all things wild. I am just the most recent casualty in that war.
But tonight I have made a jail break—I am returning home, to the
Earth, to the place of my origins. Bill, 12/21/05 (the winter solstice.)
Another image could be a homage to billions of mammals, birds, am-
phibians,reptiles, plants,and other biota rendered and consumedas ‘re-
sources’. This could be a better illustration of colonialism - a complete
subordination of nonhuman species under the banner of justice (Crist,
2012). Liberation movements of the past have challenged the underly-
ing morality of oppressive regimes both ideologically and materially
(Fanon, 1963) yet presently fall short of realizing the necessity of liber-
ating the earth (Rodman, 1977). The war metaphor employed by Duffy
(2014) excludes this battle. The real culprit is the anthropocentrism it-
self and the people who persecute those that stand up for nature.
These persecutors can be capitalist developers but also be conservation
critics that fail to realise the victimhood of nonhuman communities.
2.4. Population growth and biodiversity loss
Fourth, the argument that “It is not the number of people on the
planet that is the issue –but the number of consumers and the scale
and nature of their consumption”(Satterthwaite quoted in Cumming,
2016) is well-established, among others by Fletcher et al. (2014).
What complicates the matter is that populationquestion is inextricably
intertwined with a number of very sensitive political, ethical and ideo-
logical concerns that precludes discussing it as a sustainability challenge
(Wijkman & Rockström, 2012). The recent online comments in reaction
to Fletcher & Büscher (2016) are revealing:
WB
Do you believe that infinite population growth is possible? Forget the
talk about inequality, who's going to pay for what and how it might be
achieved. If infinite growth is not possible then there must be a point
where it stops. What is that end point?…Your article only asserts that
Wilson is dangerously wrong. So what's your solution? Altruistic shar-
ing, then more "equitable" growth to the point of what –infinity?!
Büscher
The point is that the problem of conservation has nothing atall to do
with population growth in and of itself, so the question whether in-
finite population growth is possible is a moot one. The core of the
conservation problem has to do with the type of political economy
we live in (namely a neoliberal capitalist political economy), that be-
lieves that the economy can grow forever. This is the type of ‘infinite
growth’we should really be talking about. And what this type of eco-
nomic growth does is to create an elite upper class with an insane
impact on our naturalworld - more than the poorest half of the plan-
et combined, the half that Wilson arguably wants to get rid off. So
the solution is pretty straightforward: start degrowing our econo-
mies, start sharing the global resources far more equitably (And
get rid of the elite upper class altogether)…
Fletcher
The point is that the main threat to conservation nearly everywhere
in the world is not the physical encroachmentof breeding bodies on-
to protected areas, it is the spread of extractives (i.e. oil) and other
forms of industry (i.e. palm oil) into these area. And this is mostly
being done for profit-driven consumption in a few wealthy societies.
So if we want to tackle the problem most effectively where should
we start: with the breeding bodies or with the economic logic driv-
ing this consumption and production?
PO
Population pressure in our lifetime has made things dramatically
worse. When I was born (1942) we only had 2-1/2 billion people
on the planet, and now it's three times that number. Plus, most peo-
ple are a lot richer, consuming huge amounts of everything every
year. Theplanet is paying the price for our biologicalsuccess. The fact
that the world will be losing all its wild places is a foregone conclu-
sion…
Büscher
Thanks for your thoughts. So let me get this straight: you are saying
that Wilson' plan to displace millions of (‘fertile’) people and his un-
fettered, ungrounded believe in the ideology of the free market, to-
gether with all the crazy contradictions in his text is 'objective
science’? And let me also ask whether you might volunteer to give
up your house and the city or place you live in …to be 'rewilded’
and given back to the 'half earth’of parks that Wilson is advocating
for?
NP
And let me ask whether you might volunteer to give up your house
and the city or place you live in…to the poor, discriminated, down-
trodden people that you are advocating for (given your high moral
ground)?
Büscher's comment that Wilson wants to get rid of the poor half of
the world is not just untrue but perverse. Wilson suggests no such
thing. In contemplating Fletcher and Büscher's (2016) moral crusade
for equity and equality, one may question how they actually propose
to “get rid of the elite upper class altogether”without coercion or
worse. Such an enterprise seems naïve at best, and more likely danger-
ous, as illustrated by the lessons of the Russian revolution that has
destroyed the old and produced the new elites (Kopnina, 2016c).
While corporate capitalism may be the greatest force for environmental
destruction at present, the solution of overthrowing the elites is not
available to conservationists, so other solutions need to be advanced,
with in-built compensation to any human groups who are disadvan-
taged by those solutions.
Another question is how making capitalism go away will result in a
better relationship with nature –other than by substituting capitalist by
a socialist system which in practice equally relies on environmentally
devastating systems of industrial production. The insistence that social
inequality is the root cause of unsustainability ignores the long pre-
capitalist history of hierarchy, exploitation and nature destruction that
lies at the basis of the Western dominant paradigm, positing that re-
sources are infinite or infinitely substitutable (Dunlap & Van Liere,
1978). As unsustainable production and consumption in developed
countries is far from abating and developing countries are eager to imi-
tate this ‘progress’stimulating the ‘catch-up’with the rich countries, the
noble aim of equitable redistribution does not bode well for the planet
(Hansen& Wethal, 2014). The sheer scale of human influence on the en -
vironment today is unprecedented in evolutionary history. From a bio-
logical point of view, having seven and a half billion apex predators
who are high in the food chain, either the ‘innocent’poor or the ‘guilty’
rich, implies increased demand of food, be it factory produced, hunted,
or scavenged.
Due to the twin forces of industrial development and population
pressure, the situation that used to characterise presumably sustainable
societies is very different today (Sponsel, 2013; Wilson, 2016b)and
180 H. Kopnina / Biological Conservation 203 (2016) 176–185
traditional activities are rarely sustainable (Pountney, 2012). For exam-
ple, in the recent article published in this journal, Cronin et al. (2016) in-
dicate that while huntinghas been a traditional activity for generations
on Bioko Island in Guinea, present use of modern weapons is driving
Bioko's most threatened primates towards extinction. Not only massive
industrial-scale farming tends to deplete natural environments, but also
the traditional farming (e.g. slash and burn agriculture) applied by an
increasing number of people reveals the fundamental incompatibility
of large-scale agriculture with nature conservation (Henley, 2011).
The Neolithic transition, and later agricultural development and pasto-
ralism have fundamentally transformed the human-nonhuman rela-
tionship by setting in motion the cycle of intensification driven by
population pressure, thus scaling up all activities that might have been
benevolent in earlier settings (e.g. Johnson & Earle, 2000). Meanwhile,
contemporary capitalism typically includes a commitment to rapid pop-
ulation growth, as a means to increase corporate profits (Kopnina &
Blewitt, 2014).
Denying that population growth in developing world is one of the
drivers of unsustainability can only be true if one expects that the
poor will never escape poverty, nor ever migrate to the more economi-
cally developed countries (Kopnina & Washington, 2016). This is obvi-
ously not the ideal of equality and freedom that social justice
advocates would embrace. Since it is assumed that all human beings
have a right to a decent living, and since no sustainable system of pro-
duction has yet been devised, population pressure is not going to help
long term welfare of future generations (Wijkman & Rockström,
2012). Growing population does, however, serve short term economic
interests–the greater population, the bigger the expansion of market
away from the already saturated ‘rich’countries, and the bigger, once
again, economic growth (Kopnina & Blewitt, 2014).
This alignment of demographic expansion and capitalist interests
seems to escape conservation critics’attention. Nor do they seem to be
aware of robust literature that supports sustainability in the context of
ecological integrity. Instead of perpetuating the economic rationale for
continuous growth, which Fletcher and Büscher (2016) rightly criticize,
the core of transformative sustainability thinking has been a call for tran-
sition to the steady state economy (e.g. Daly, 1991; Washington, 2015),
Cradle to Cradle (e.g. Braungart & McDonough, 2002; Kopnina &
Blewitt, 2014), degrowth (e.g. Victor, 2010; O'Neill, 2012), and circular
economy (e.g. Lieder and Rashid, 2015) models. Yet leaving population
growth out of the sustainability equation tends to exacerbate challenges
of economic transition (Daly, 1991; Washington, 2015). Support of alter-
native economies based on degrowth in rich countries and the promotion
of non-coercive measures to address population growth globally is both
needed (e.g. Washington, 2015).
Last but not least, there is a question of population ethics. Noss
(1992) has argued persuasively that the ecosystems and the collective
needs of non-human species should take precedence over the needs
and desires of humans, because people are both more resilient to envi-
ronmental change andmore destructive than any other species. Putting
the needs of one species above those of all other species combined, as
exemplified by the sustainable development rhetoric (UN, 2015), is
one of the most pernicious trends in modern conservation (Noss,
1992). The preservation of large areas of tropical rain forest can safe-
guard the complete biota, and prevent large vertebrates suffering from
habitat fragmentation (e.g. Turner & Corlett, 1996). As it was recently
noted in this journal, the scale mismatch between necessary breeding
territory for large predators and the actual territory free of human set-
tlement adds to the vulnerability of existing small populations of tigers
(Chundawat et al., 2016).
Combining deep ecology and animal rights ethics, ecocide, defined as
killing of living beings, either directly through consumption, medical ex-
perimentation, and hunting, or indirectly through habitat destruction,
can be framed a legal crime (Higgins, 2010; Peters, 2016). Higgins
(2010) refers to ecocide as “the extensive destruction, damage to or loss
of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or by
other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabi-
tants of that territory has been severely diminished”(Higgins, 2010). So-
ciologist Eileen Crist (2012:147) equates ecocide to genocide: “the mass
violence against and extermination of nonhuman nations, negating not
only their own existence but also their roles in Life's interconnected
nexus and their future evolutionary unfolding”. Underlining the excep-
tional ethical stakes involved in species extinction, Soulé and Wilcox
(1980:8) comment: “Death is one thing; an end to birth is something
else”. This is not comparable to displacement of communities as
nonhumans are not only displaced but erased, eliminated, exterminated
forever. From this perspective, the consideration of justice in the context
of demographic imbalances needs to include consideration of populations
of billions of the earth's nonhuman citizens and their entitlements (Cafaro,
2015). Asserting that people need the whole planet at the expense of non-
human inhabitants testifies to human chauvinism and the worst kind of
anthropocentrism –human supremacy (Crist, 2012). Mathews (2016) ar-
gues that just speaking of other species’viability leaving out the question
of population and proportional distribution of resources between species
is an implicit concession to human hegemony, revealing the underlying
anthropocentrism of ‘biodiversity for the sake of people’only
perspectives.
As Crist (2012:149) has stated, the question we should be asking is:
“How many people, and at what level of consumption, can live on the
Earth without turning the Earth into a human colony founded on the
genocide of its nonhuman indigenes? The latter is rarely posed because
the genocide of nonhumans is something about which the mainstream
culture, including the political left, observes silence”.Perhapsitistime
to break this silence.
3. Discussion
3.1. The question of justice
As discussed above, historically, most protected areas and national
parks have been established for the people, everywhere in the world,
and not just in postcolonial nations (e.g. Doak et al. 2015). What
Wilson (2016a, 2016b) proposes is that these parks need to be created
for nonhumans as well, evoking ecological justice. While the term 'envi-
ronmental justice' often refers to (un)equal distribution of environmen-
tal burdens and benefits across human populations (e.g. Low and
Gleeson 1998), the term ‘ecological justice’(or biospheric egalitarian-
ism), refers to justice between species (Wissenburg, 1993; Baxter,
2005; Schlosberg, 2007; Cafaro & Primack, 2014; Kopnina, 2014;
Cafaro, 2015).
Anthropologist Veronica Strang (2016) discusses relational ‘justice’
referring to recognising, appreciating and upholding value in other
communities and individuals. Similar to Baxter's (2005) support for
the right of (at least some) non-human species to distributive justice,
Strang recognizes that this right is founded in inclusive definition of eq-
uity, which requires that all life forms have access to the resources that
they need to flourish. This implies, according to Mathews (2016),an
ethic of bio-proportionality which moves beyond mere viability of spe-
cies but requires optimization of populations of all species, including
territory proportional to species requirements. In order to guarantee
this justice, though, human representatives need to stand in democratic
assemblies for other species or even ecosystems. Examples of such rep-
resentatives are Polly Higgins, the lead advocate for Ecocide law (http://
pollyhiggins.com/) and Steve Wise, a founder of Nonhuman Rights Pro-
ject (http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/steve-wise/).
It is significant to note that the critics make an assumption that
humans are more important than all other species but never take the
time to explain why humans are more important, and why their intra-
species struggles should take priority over all other species. The arro-
gance of humanism (Ehrenfeld, 1978), and the arroganceof resourcism
(Foreman, 1991, 2011) explain this anthropocentrism, but the only log-
ical justification of it seems “might makes right”utilitarianism –as
181H. Kopnina / Biological Conservation 203 (2016) 176–185
noted by a number of scholars (Rodman, 1977; Dunlap & Van Liere,
1978; Ehrenfeld, 1978; Noss, 1992; Soulé & Noss, 1998; Foreman,
1991; Crist, 2012; Wuerthner etal., 2014; Shoreman-Ouimet& Kopnina,
2016). The position that conservation is hurting most vulnerable com-
munities and thus should be abandoned unless it benefits these com-
munities seems morally defendable because nonhuman communities
are simply left out of consideration. Simply put, human inequality and
injustice toward one another have been around for millennia. We
should continue to work for their just resolution—but not to the neglect
of the global crisis of biodiversity loss, which is a matter of interspecies
justice. To paraphrase George Orwell, exclusive focus on interhuman in-
justice implies that human beings are infinitely more ‘equal’then all
other living beings. That position is itself unjust.
3.2. Points of convergence between social and ecological justice
Sometimes, mixed methods, in which “conservation should give up its
infatuation with parks and focus on ‘mixing’people and nature in mutu-
ally conducive ways”(Fletcher & Büscher, 2016) can offer positive
results–but only in cases where human-wildlife conflict and the possibil-
ity of over-use can be avoided. Successful example of conservation that
combines social and ecological objectives includes the Roots & Shoots pro-
gram, founded by Jane Goodall. This program aims to help young people
to play an active role in addressing ecological and social challenges includ-
ing poverty alleviation (Goodall, 2015). Goodall (2015:23–24) reports on
some of the activities of the program, which started with selecting a team
of local Tanzanians who gained the cooperation of the villagers by re-
specting and addressing their needs and priorities. These were needs
were outlined as increased food production (accomplished through resto-
ration of fertility to the overused farmland—without the use of chemical
fertilizers); improved health facilities; and better education. The program
has encouraged the establishment of wood lots close to the villages, intro-
duced fuel-efficient stoves and hygienic latrines. The program started
micro-credit programs (especially for women) for environmentally sus-
tainable projects of their choice, including tree nurseries (Ibid). The pro-
gram also provided scholarships for girls to stay in school and have
trained volunteers who provide family planning information and thus
helped to reduce unwanted pregnancies. These initiatives led to positive
community responses and action:
And, because of the good relations we had built up with thevillagers,
they agreed to set aside, for forest regeneration, a buffer zone sur-
rounding Gombe National Park. Within this buffer zone—adesignat-
ed village forest reserve—there can be no hunting or tree felling,
although limited access does allow for foraging for medicinal plants
and mushrooms, beekeeping, and gathering dead wood…This buff-
er zone alsoprotects the watershed and thus the water supply to the
villages. Over the past ten years new trees have grown from seeds
and from the stumps left in the ground, and many of these have
reached heights of over 20 feet so that the chimpanzees of Gombe
can, once again, move out of the park when certain fruits ripen in
the buffer zone (Goodall 2015:23).
While the long term consequences of the program yet need to be in-
vestigated, according to the evaluative reports, according to evaluations
(e.g. Czaplinski-Mirek et al., 2007; Murphy, 2014), the program suc-
ceeds in successfully tying in social in helping poor people live better
lives, as well as ecological justice indirectly by curbing population
growth through family planning information campaigns, and directly
by setting aside more habitats for other animals. As of 2016, the Roots
& Shoots program has expanded to more than 130 countries, illustrating
the possibility of combining ecological and social objectives on large
scale.
Another point of convergence is the general agreement between
critics and supporters of strict conservation measures is that one of
the core problems “has to do with the type of political economy we
live in (namely a neoliberal capitalist political economy), that believes
that the economy can grow forever”(Fletcher, blog comment response).
It is not the fusing of wild and domesticated nature that is needed, buta
common realization that the current industrialist system not only dev-
astates and commodifies nature, but also colonise human beings and
enlisting us as agents of industrialism (Kidner, 2014).
Converging critique is also that of culture-nature dichotomy, and the
need to see human interests congruent with that of environment and its
elements. Yet, this convergence is only possible if theidea of being ‘part
of nature’does not overshadow therecognition of the necessity toguar-
antee integrity of the ecosystem as a whole. Wilson (2016a) reflects that
allocating half of the earth to nature simultaneously aims to address our
own survival as a species:
The beautiful world our species inherited took the biosphere 3.8 bil-
lion years to build. The intricacy of its species we know only in part,
and the way they work together to create a sustainable balance we
have only recently begun to grasp. Like it or not, and prepared or
not, we are the mind and stewards of the living world. Our own ul-
timate future depends upon that understanding.
If anthropocentrism is to be countered, the issue of justice should be
addressed from all possible angles –sustainability, including the ques-
tions of consumptionand distribution of power, and more efficient con-
servation strategies, including the questions of trade-offs involved in
sharing of our beautiful planet. The simple biological fact is that nature
does not need humans, but humans need nature (Wilson, 2016b).
Many interdisciplinary scholars already make valuable contributions
to the development of non-anthropocentric values in their disciplines.
Environmental philosophers (e.g. Leopold, 1949; Devall & Session,
1985; Naess & Rothenberg, 1989), environmental sociologists (e.g.
Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978; Crist, 2012) have all exposed anthropocen-
trism as one of the main drivers of the current ecological crisis. The con-
servation psychology studies of environmental values have indicated
that people with ecocentric orientation are more likely to act upon
their values in orderto protect the environment than those with anthro-
pocentric orientations (e.g. Thompson and Barton, 1994; Stern and
Dietz, 1994; Stern, 2000). These studies also offer a number of pragmat-
ic and strategic recommendations in the quest for environmental
sustainability.
Sponsel (2016) has proposed that anthropologists are especially
well situated to serve as mediators among individuals from different in-
terest groups like environmental, conservation, government, communi-
ty, and religious organizations “through basic and applied research as
well as through advocacy”(Ibid P. 134). Political scientists have
discussed ways in which ecological justice can be incorporated into
existing political systems (e.g. Eckersley, 2004; Baxter, 2005). Scholars
working within the animal law field have discussed ways in which ani-
mal rights can be integrated in legal systems (e.g. Peters, 2016).
4. Conclusion: ethical and practical considerations
Continuing expansion of human population and commercial activi-
ties are rarely compatible with ecosystem flourishing, and strict protec-
tion has been most effective in addressing biodiversity loss (CBD). We,
academics, could play a part in promoting public awareness and politi-
cal decision-making to seriously engage with the question of setting na-
ture aside for protection. To achieve this, the starting point is a truly
balanced moral discussion about exclusive justice that extends beyond
Homo sapiens –which is, supposedly, a unique species capable of ratio-
nality, compassion, and a sense of right and wrong (Wilson, 1985). As
Locke (2015) has noted, at the World Wilderness Congress in which
‘Nature needs half”proposal has been discussed, some delegates have
reflected “We must be realistic about what is politically achievable
and that is not”(Locke, 2015: 12). However, this rationale does should
not apply to nongovernmental organizations (NGO's) “whose role in
182 H. Kopnina / Biological Conservation 203 (2016) 176–185
civil society is to say the things that governments ought to do and to
help find ways to bring that about”(Locke 2015:13). This is often not
happening because of NGO's fear losing donor sponsorship, and
attracting a storm of critique incase their cause is notseen as benefitting
humans. The basic problem with this type of self-censorship is that it
“focuseson the actors not the outcome, which is the conservationof bio-
diversity (Ibid). Basically, sharing the planet among all species will be
better for humans, too, as it will prevent turning the land and seas too
exclusively toward economic activities, preventing an eventual collapse
of a sick and unsafe world—as well as locking in the injustice of mass ex-
tinction. The living forms marked in WWF's Living Planet Index (WWF,
2014) constitute the very fabric of the ecosystems which sustain life on
Earth - and the barometer of what we are doing to our own planet, our
only home.
In arguing that Wilson's suggestion to allocate half of the earth to
nonhumans is unjust, Fletcher & Büscher (2016) deny justice to the
most vulnerable communities–those of nonhumans. Rights-basedcon-
servation strategies challenge organizations to determine just who is
benefiting, whose voices are being left behind, and how to close the
gaps. Creating such strategies will involve closer community and stake-
holder engagement to give voice to the marginalized. This article sup-
ports this call, but only if the label of ‘marginalised’is expanded to a
global community of all living beings. Nature and humans can co-
exist, but careful weighing of mutual benefits, in which human interests
do not outweigh those of other species, is needed (Strang, 2016). Over-
all, As Johns (2009) has argued, a broader conservation politic that mo-
tivates people to care for nature and motivates action of nature's behalf
is needed.
I propose that rather than making excuses for conservationists and
asserting that they do serve humans after all (as they certainly do),
the environmental cause is better served by a rebuttal question: what
justifies rampant anthropocentrism that condemns species and individ-
uals within species to use, abuse, displacement and in some cases even
extinction? The correct answer to critics of conservation should not be
defensive or apologetic, but similar to what the leaders of earlier
human liberation movements have done: a frontal confrontation with
the underlying morality of oppressive regimes.
References
Agrawal,A., Redford, K., 2009.Conservation and displacement: an overview. Conserv. Soc.
7 (29), 4–12.
Baxter, B.H., 2005. A Theory of Ecological Justice. Routledge, London, New York.
Braungart, M., McDonough, W., 2002. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the way we make
things. Vintage Books, London.
Brockington, D., 2002. Fortress conservation: The preservation of the Mkomazi Game Re-
serve, Tanzania. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.
Brockington, D., Duffy, R., Igoe, J., 2008. Nature Unbound: Conservation, Capitalism and
the Future of Protected Areas. Earthscan, London.
Büscher, B., 2015. “Rhino poaching is out of control!”Violence, Heroes and the Politics of
Hysteria in online Conservation Paper presented at the British International Studies
Association, London, UK 16–19 June.
Büscher,B.,Sullivan,S.,Neves,K.,Igoe,J.,Brockington,D.,2012.Towards a Synthe-
sized Critique of Neoliberal Biodiversity Conservation. Capital. Nat. Social. 23
(2), 4–30.
Cafaro, P., 2015. Three ways to think about the sixth mass extinction. Biol. Conserv. 192,
387–393.
Cafaro, P.,Primack, R., 2014. Species extinction is a great moral wrong. Biol. Conserv.170,
1–2.
CBD (The Convention on Biological Diversity). https://www.cbd.int/(Accessed June 21,
2016).
Chapin, M., 2004. A challenge to conservationists. World Watch November/December,
pp. 17–31.
Chundawat, R.S., Sharma, K., Gogate, N., Malik, P.K., Vanak, A.T., 2016. Size matters: Scale
mismatch between space use patterns of tigers and protected area size in a Tropical
Dry Forest. Biol. Conserv. 197, 146–153.
Claus, A., Freeman, S., 2016. Panel “Global Elisions: Silence and Circumvention in Conser-
vation and Development’American Anthropological Association annual meeting, in
November 2016 in Minneapolis USA.
Corry, S., 2011. Tribal Peoples for Tomorrow's World. Survival International, London, UK.
Crist, E., 2012. Abundant Earth and Population. In: Cafaro, P., Crist, E. (Eds.), In Life on the
Brink: Environmentalists confront Overpopulation. University of Georgia Press, Ath-
ens, pp. 141–153.
Crist, E., 2015. I walk in the world to love it. In: Wuerthner, G., Crist, E., Butler, T. (Eds.),
Protecting the Wild: Parks and Wilderness, The Foundation for Conservation. The Is-
land Press, Washington, London, pp. 82–95.
Crist, E., Cafaro, P., 2012. Human Population Growth as If the Rest of Life Mattered. In:
Cafaro, P., Crist, E. (Eds.), Life on the Brink: Environmentalists confront Overpopula-
tion. University of Georgia Press, Athens, pp. 3–15.
Cronin, D.T., Riaco, C., Linder, J.M., Bergl, R.A., Gonder, M.K., O'Connor, M.P., Hearn, G.W.,
2016. Impact of gun-hunting on monkey species and implications forprimate conser-
vation on Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea. Biol. Conserv. 197, 180–189.
Cronon, W., 1996. The Trouble with Wilderness,or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature. In:
Ground, U. (Ed.), Rethinking the Human Place in Nature, edited by W. Cronon, New
York, W.W. Norton & Co, pp. 69–90.
Cumming, V., 2016. How Many People Can Our Planet Really Support? BBC. March 14
http://www.bbc.com/earth/s tory/20160311-how-many-people-can-ou r-planet-
really-support.
Czaplinski-Mirek, A., Jeong, S.H., Kamiloglu, M., Oshino, T., Park, S., Sophonpanich, L.,
Zhuang, H., 2007. Evaluation of the Jane Goodall Institute:China's Roots & Shoots En-
vironmental Education Program in Beijing. School of International and Public Affairs,
Columbia University https://sipa.columbia.edu/s ites/default/ files/R%26S-China%
20Evaluation_0.pdf.
Daly, H., 1991. Steady State Economics. The Island Press, Washington, London.
Devall, B., Sessions, G., 1985. Deep Ecology: Living as If Nature Mattered. Peregrine Smith
Books, Salt Lake City.
Doak, D.F., Bakker, V.J., Goldstein, B.E., Hale, B., 2015. What is the future of conservation?
In: Wuerthner, G., Crist, E., Butler, T. (Eds.), Protecting the Wild: Parks and Wilder-
ness, The Foundation for Conservation. The Island Press, Washington, London,
pp. 27–35
Duffy, R.,2014. Waging a war to save biodiversity: therise of militarised conservation.Int.
Aff. 90 (4), 819–834.
Dunlap,R.E., Van Liere, K.D.,1978. The new environmental paradigm: a proposed measur-
ing Instrument and preliminary results. J. Environ. Educ. 9 (4), 10–19.
Eckersley, R., 2004. The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty. MIT Press,
London.
Ehrenfeld, D., 1978. The Arrogance of Humanism. Oxford University Press, New York.
Ehrenfeld, D., 1988. Why put a value on biodiversity? In: Wilson, E.O. (Ed.), Biodiversity.
DC, National Academy Press, Washington, pp. 212–216
Estes, J.A., Terborgh, J., Brashares, J.S., Power, M.E., Berger, J., Bond, W.J., Carpenter, S.R.,
Essington, T.E., Holt, R.D., Jackson, J.B.C., Marquis, R.J., Oksanen, L., Oksanen, T.,
Paine, R.T., Pikitch, E.K., Ripple, W.J., Sandin, S.A., Scheffer, M., Shoener, T.W., Shurin,
J.B., Sinclair, A.R.E., Soulé, M.E., Vrtanen, R., Wardle,D.A., 2011. Trophic Downgrading
of Planet Earth. Science 333, 301–306.
Fairhead, J., Leach, M., 1996. Misreading the African Landscape: Society and Ecology in a
Forest-Savanna Mosaic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Fanon, F., 1963. The Wretched of the Earth. Grove Press.
Fears, D., 2016a. For Latin American environmentalists, death is a constant compan-
ion. The Washington Post (March 25) https://www.washingtonpost.com/
national/health-science/for-latin-american-environmentalists-death-is-a-constant-
companion/2016/03/25/85920f96-ec69-11e5-bc08-3e03a5b41910_story.html.
Fears, D., 2016b. Last year was the deadliest ever for the world's environmental activists.
The Washington Post (June 20) https://www.wash ingtonpost.com/news/energy-
environment/wp/2016/06/20/last-year-was-the-deadli est-ever-for-the-worlds-
environmental-activists/.
Fitzgerald, K.H., 2015. The silent killer: habitat loss and the role of african protected areas
to conserve biodiversity. In: Wuerthner, G., Crist, E., Butler, T. (Eds.), Protecting the
Wild: Parks and Wilderness, The Foundation for Conservation. The Island Press,
Washington, London, pp. 170–188.
Fletcher,R., 2009. Against Wilderness. Green Theory & Praxis: The Journal of Ecopedagogy
5(1),169–179.
Fletcher,R., 2014. Romancing the Wild:Cultural Dimensions of Ecotourism. Duke Univer-
sity, Durham, NC.
Fletcher, R., Büscher, B., 2016. Why E. O. Wilson is wrong about how to save the Earth
https://aeon.co/opinions/why-e-o-wilson-is-wrong-about-how-to-save-the-earth.
Fletcher, R., Breitlin, J., Puleo, V., 2014. Barbarian hordes: the overpopulation scapegoat in
international development discourse. Third World Q. 35 (7), 1195–1215.
Fletcher,R.,Dressler,W.,Büscher,B.,2015.Nature™Inc.: Nature as capitalist Imaginary. In:
Bryant, R. (Ed.), Handbook of Political Ecology. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK,
pp. 359–372.
Foreman, D., 1991. Confessions of an eco-warrior. Harmony, New York.
Foreman, D., 2004. Rewilding North America: A Vision for Conservation in the 21st Cen-
tury. The Island Press, Washington, London.
Foreman, D., 2011. The Arrogance of Resourcism. In Conservation vs. Conservation. The
Rewilding Institute and Raven's Eye Press, Durango, CO.
Fraser, C.,2009. Rewilding the World: Dispatches from the Conservation Revolution. Met-
ropolitan Books, New York.
Funk, W.H., 2014. Nature Needs Half. Earth Island Journal http://www.earthisland.org/
journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/nature_needs_half/.
Gabon, E., 2008. The elephant in the room: confronting the colonial character of wildlife
conservation in africa. Afr. Stud. Rev. 51 (3), 51–74.
Global Witness , 2014. Deadly Environment. https://www.globalwitness.or g/en/
campaigns/environmental-activists/deadly-environment/.
Goodall,J., 2015. Caring forpeople and valuing forests in Africa. In: Wuerthner, G., Crist, E.,
Butler, T. (Eds.), Protecting the Wild: Parks and Wilderness, The Foundation for Con-
servation. The Island Press, Washington, London, pp. 21–26.
Gorenflo, L.J., Romaine, S., Mittermeier, R.A., Walker-Painemilla, K., 2012. Co-occurrence
of linguistic and biological diversity in biodiversity hotspots and high biodiversity
wilderness areas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109 (21), 8032–8037.
183H. Kopnina / Biological Conservation 203 (2016) 176–185
Hansen, A ., Wethal, U. (Eds.), 20 14. Emerging Economies and Challenges toSustainability:
Theories, strategies, local realities. Routledge, New York.
Henley, D., 2011. Swidden farming as an agent of environmental change: ecological myth
and historical reality in Indonesia. Environ. Hist. 17, 525–554.
Higgins, P., 2010. Eradicating ecocide: laws and governance to prevent the destruction of
our planet. Shepheard Walwyn Publishers Ltd., pp. 62–63.
Holmes, G., 2013. Exploring the relationship between local support and the success of
protected areas. Conserv. Soc. 11, 72–82.
Johns, D., 2009.A New Conservation Politics: Power, Organization Building, and Effective-
ness. Wiley Blackwell, Oxford.
Johnson, A.W., Earle, T.K.,2000. The evolution of human societies: from foraging group to
agrarian state. Stanford University Press, Redwood City.
Kareiva, P., Lalasz, R., Marvier, M., 2011. Conservation in the Anthropocene: Beyond Soli-
tude and Fragility. Breast J. 27–29 Fall, P..
Kellert, S.R., Wilson, E.O., 1995. The Biophilia Hypothesis. The Island Press, Washington,
London.
Kidner, D., 2014. Why “anthropocentrism”is not anthropocentric. Dialect. Anthropol. 38,
465–480.
Koot, S., 2016. Cultural ecotourism as an indigenous modernity: Namibian Bushmen and
two contradictions of capitalism. In: Kopnina, H., Shoreman-Ouimet, E. (Eds.),
Routledge Handbook of Environme ntal Anthropolo gy. Routledge, Ne w York,
pp. 315–326.
Kopnina, H., 2014. Environmental justice and biospheric egalitarianism: reflecting on a
normative-philosophical view of human-nature relationship. Earth Perspectives 1, 8.
Kopnina, H., 2015. Revisiting the Lorax complex: Deep ecology and biophilia in cross-
cultural perspective. Environmental Sociology 43 (4), 315–324.
Kopnina, H., 2016a. Wild animals and justice: the case of the dead elephant in the room.
Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy 19 (3), 219–235.
Kopnina, H., 2016b. The victims of unsustainability: a challenge to sustainable develop-
ment goals. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 23
(2), 113–121.
Kopnina, H., 2016c. Of big hegemonies and little tigers: ecocentrism and environmental
justice. Special issue “On the politics of policy-making for education for sustainable
development”. J. Environ. Educ. 47 (2), 132–150.
Kopnina, H., 2016d. Nobody Likes Dichotomies (but sometimes you need them). Anthro-
pological Forum In print.
Kopnina, H., Blewitt, J., 2014. Sustainable Business: Key issues. Routledge, New York.
Kopnina, H., Washington, H., 2016. Discussing why population growth is still ignored or
denied. Chinese Journal of Population, Resources and Environment 14 (2), 133–143.
Lakhani, N., 2014. Surge in deaths of environmental activists over past decade, report
finds. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/15/ surge-deaths-
environmental-activists-global-witness-report.
Leopold, A., 1949. A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. Oxford Univer-
sity Press, New York.
Lieder, M., Rashid, A., 2015.Towards circular economy implementation: a comprehensive
review in context of manufacturing industry. J. Clean. Prod. http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652615018661.
Locke, H., 2015. Nature needs (at least) half: a necessary new agenda for protected areas.
In: Wuerthner, G., Crist, E., Butler, T. (Eds.), Protecting the Wild: Parks and Wilder-
ness, The Foundation for Conservation. The Island Press, Washington, London,
pp. 3–16.
Low, N., Gleeson, B., 1998. Justice, Society and Nature. Routledge, New York.
Marris, E., 2011. Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World. Bloomsbury
Publishing, New York.
Mathews, F., 2016 . From biodiversity-based conservation to an ethic of bio-
proportionality. Biol. Conserv. 200, 140–148.
Murphy, S., 2014. Jane Goodall' Roots & Shoots: Measuring Compassion and Altruism.
http://theimprovegroup.com/blog/2014-09/jane-goodall%E2%80%99s-roots-shoots-
measuring-compassion-and-altruism-susan-murphy (Accessed August 29, 2016).
Naess, A., 1973. The shallow and the deep: long-range ecology movement. A summary,
Inquiry 16, 95–99.
Naess, A., Rothenberg, D., 1989. Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline of an
Ecosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, NY.
Nonini, D., 2013. Plenary debate ‘Justice for people should come before justice for envi-
ronment. World Anthropology Congress. ASA-IUAES con ference, Manchester, 5-
10th August 2013. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oldnYTYMx-k (Accessed Au-
gust 29, 2016).
Noss, R.F., 1992. The Wildlands Project Land Conservation Strategy. Wild Earth 1, 9–25.
Noss, R.F.,Cooperrider, A.Y.,1994. Saving Nature's Legacy: Protecting and RestoringBiodi-
versity. The Island Press, Washington, London.
Oates, J.F., 1999. Myth and Reality in the Rain Forest. How Conservation Strategies Are
Failing in West Africa. University of California Press, London.
O'Neill,D.W., 2012. Measuringprogress in the degrowth transition to a steadystate econ-
omy. Ecol. Econ. 84, 221–231.
Peters, A., 2016. Global Animal Law: What It Is and Why We Need It. Transnational Envi-
ronmental Law 5, 9–23.
Peterson, D., 2013. Talking about Bushmeat. In: Bekoff, M. (Ed.), Ignoring Nature No More:
The Case for Compassionate Conservation. Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp. 64–76.
Posey, D.A. (Ed.), 1998. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. Leiden: Leiden Uni-
versity Press, Intermediate Technology Publications, and United Nations Environ-
mental Programme (UNEP).
Pountney, J., 2012. BookReview: Kalland, Unveiling the whale. Antiqu. J. 18 (1), 215–217.
Rantala, S., Vihemäki,H., Swallow, B.M., Jambiya, G., 2013. Who gains and who loses from
compensated displacement from Protected Areas? The Case of Derema Cor ridor,
Tanzania. Conserv. Soc. 11 (2), 97–111.
Redford, K.H., 1992. The empty forest. Bioscience 42, 412–422.
Roberts,C., 2007. The UnnaturalHistory of the Sea. The IslandPress, Washington, London.
Rodman, J., 1977. The liberation of nature? Inquiry 20 (1-4), 83–131.
Sandall, R., 2000. The Culture Cult: Designer Tribalism and Other Essays. Westview Press,
Boulder, Colorado.
Schlosberg, D., 2007. Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Shoreman-Ouimet, E., Kopnina, H., 2015. Reconciling Social and Ecological Justice for the
Sake of Conservation. Biol. Conserv. 184, 320–326.
Shoreman-Ouim et, E., Kopnina, H., 2016. Culture and conservation: Beyond
Athropocentrism. Routledge, New York.
Sinclair, A.R.E., 2015. Protected Areas Are Necessary for Conservation. In: Wuerthner, G.,
Crist, E., Butler, T. (Eds.), Protecting the Wild: Parks and Wilderness, The Foundation
for Conservation. The Island Press, Washington, London, pp. 72–81.
Singer, P., 1977. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for our Treatment of Animals. Random
House, New York.
Soulé, M., Noss, R., 1998.Rewilding and Biodiversity: Complementary Goals for Continen-
tal Conservation. Wild Earth 8, 19–28.
Soulé, M., Wilcox, B.A. (Eds.), 1980. Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary- Ecological
Perspective. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
Sponsel, L., 2013. Human Impact on Biodiversity: Overview. In: Levin, S.A. (Ed.), Encyclo-
pedia of Biodiversity. Academic Press, Waltham, NY, pp. 137–152.
Sponsel, L., 2016. Spiritual Ecology, Sacred Places, and Biodiversity Conservation. In:
Kopnina, H., Shoreman-Ouimet, E. (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Environmental An-
thropology. Routledge, New York, pp. 132–144.
Stern, P.C., 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour.
J. Soc. Issues 36, 407–424.
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., 1994. The value basis of environmental concern. J. Soc. Issues 50,
65–84.
Strang, V., 2016. Justice for All: Inconvenient truths and reconciliation in human-non-
human relations. In: Kopnina, H., Shoreman-Ouimet, E. (Eds.), Routledge Handbook
of Environmental Anthropology. Routledge, New York, pp. 263–278.
Svancara, L.K., et al., 2005. Policy-driven versus evidence-based conservation: a review of
political targets and biological needs. Bioscience 55 (11), 989–995.
Terborgh, J., 1999. Requiem for Nature. The Island Press, Washington, London.
Thompson, G.S.C., Barton, M.A., 1994. Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward
the envir onment. J . Environ. Psychol. 14, 149–157.
Turner,I.M., Corlett, R.T., 1996.The conservationvalue of small, isolated fragments of low-
land tropical rain forest. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11 (8), 330–333.
UN (United Nations), 2015. Transforming our world:the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable De-
velopment. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld.
Victor, P., 2010. Questioning economic growth. Nature 468, 370–371.
Washington, H., 2015. Demystifying Sustainability: Towards Real Solutions. Routledge,
London.
West, P., Brockington, D., 2012. Introduction: capitalism and the environment. Environ-
ment and Society: Advances in Research 3 (1), 1–3.
Wijkman,A., Rockström, J.,2012. BankruptingNature: Denying Our Planetary Boundaries.
Routledge, New York.
Wilkie, D.,et al., 2006. Parks and people: assessing the human welfare effects of establish-
ing protected areas for biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Biol. 20 (1), 247–249.
Wilson, E.O., 1985. The biological diversity crisis. Bioscience 35 (11), 700–706.
Wilson, E.O., 1993. Biophilia and the co nservation ethic. In: Kellert, S.R., Wilson, E.O.
(Eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis. The Island Press, Washington, London,
pp. 31–41.
Wilson, E.O., 2016a. Half earth. https://aeon.co/essays/half-of-the-earth-must-be-
preserved-for-nature-conservation.
Wilson, E.O., 2016b. Half Earth. Liveright, New York.
Wissenburg, M., 19 93. The idea of nature and the nature of distributive justice. In:
Dobson, A., Lucardie, P. (Eds.), The Politics of Nature: Explorations in Green Political
Theory. Routledge, London.
Wuerthner, G., Crist, E., Butler, T. (Eds.), 2014. Keeping the Wild: Against the Domestica-
tion of Earth. The Island Press, Washington, London.
WWF (World Wildlife Fund), 2014. Living planet report 2014. Available from: http://
www.worldwildlife.org/pages/living-pla net-report-2014 (Accessed August 29,
2016).
Glossary
Animal rights: The rights claimed on ethical grounds, to the same humane treatment and
protection from exploitation and abuse that are accorded to humans.
Anthropocene: Anthropocene is an informal geologic term that serves to mark the evi-
dence and extent of human activities that havehad a significant global impact on the eco-
systems.The term describesthe influence of humanbehavior on theEarth's atmosphere in
recent centuries as so significant as to constitute a new geological epoch.
Anthropocentrism: Human-centeredness, the position that humans are more important
and superior to other species or the assessment of reality through an exclusively human
perspective. Anthropocentrismis a major concept in environmental ethics and often seen
as the cause of problems created by human interaction with the environment.
Biospheric Egalitarianism: Biospheric Egalitarianism, otherwiseknown as ecological justice
concerns the rights of other species independently of human interest.
CircularEconomy: The circulareconomy refers to an industrial economy that is restorative
by intention; aims to rely on renewable energy; minimizes, tracks, and hopefully elimi-
nates the useof toxic chemicals; and eradicates waste throughcareful design. Theconcept
of the circulareconomy is grounded inthe study of non-linear,particularly livingsystems.
Cradle to Cradle: Cradle to Cradle framework contemplates not just minimizing the dam-
age, but proposes how contemporary wasteand depletion of resourcescan be completely
avoided by adhering to the ‘waste= food’principle.
184 H. Kopnina / Biological Conservation 203 (2016) 176–185
Deep ecology: Deep ecology is a position in environmental ethics that recognizes that
humans are interconnected with other species and that nature has intrinsic value,mean-
ing that other species also have a right to live independent of human interests.
Ecocentrism: A termused in environmentalethics to denotea nature-centered, as opposed
to human-centred,system of values.Ecocentric or biocentric approach recognizes intrinsic
value of non-human species –that is values nature for its own sake.
Ecological justice: While environmental justice in anthropocentric approach is concerned
with equal distribution of natural resources as well as environmental risks and benefits
among humans,ecological justicerefers to justice between allliving species (see also bio-
spheric ega litarianism)
Environmental justice: Environmental justice refers to inequitable distribution of environ-
mental burdens to vulnerable groupssuch as ethnic minorities or the economicallydisad-
vantagedpopulations; or to the developed and developingcountries’unequal exposure to
environmental risks and benefits; or to intergenerational justice between present and fu-
ture generations; or to ecological justice
Hippo: Habitat destruction, invasive species, pollution, population increase and over-
harvesting
Neocolonialism: Neocolonialism refers to an unequal economic and political power be-
tweenformer colonial powersand former colonies,and continuousinfluence of developed
over developing countries.
185H. Kopnina / Biological Conservation 203 (2016) 176–185
