The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) are counting on research, policy and practice to drive the paradigm shift needed to address the social and ecological threats of climate change, biodiversity loss and injustice. Despite global efforts to resolve these systemic challenges, the paradigm underpinning mainstream conservation research, policy and practice, is criticized as insufficient, marginalizing, and even oppressive - exacerbating the problems people are seeking to solve. ‘Biodiversity’, ‘conservation’, and ‘biodiversity conservation’ means different things to different people based on their distinctive worldview(s), knowledge(s) and value(s) - differences that are crucial to recognize and understand for any paradigm shift to be achievable in a way that is pluralistic, inclusive and equitable.
A paradigm is composed of a set of explicit premises and implicit assumptions that form a procedural model (e.g., theories, methodologies, postulates) used to process patterns of the world to describe realities. Paradigms can be distinguished by examining the underlying worldviews, knowledges and values from which they arise. In general terms, a worldview defines the essence of what is perceived to exist in the world and the nature of relations. Knowledge constitutes systems through which information, data, analysis and meaning is formed, to become embodied through a process of consensus. Values encompass the guiding codes-of-conduct that inform how judgements are made and weighed. Together, worldviews, knowledges and values generate paradigms of the world, how it is experienced, and how it works.
A paradigm shift from the dominant worldview, knowledge, and values - commonly referred to as ‘business-as-usual’ - has been cited by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) as vital to conserve biological diversity for a sustainable future. A transformation from the business-as-usual paradigm requires the adoption of diverse worldviews, knowledges and values into conservation practices, while being pragmatic in negotiating (in)commensurabilities (i.e., measures of commonality/compatibility). The business-as-usual paradigm largely comprises a worldview that perceives reality existing as one globalized system, prioritizing objective knowledge, to realize values of individuality, freedom, and economic prosperity for all.
Relational principles sit in contrast to many aspects of business-as-usual paradigms. Relational principles assume that there are many, dynamic, realities intersubjectively defined by interconnected and interdependent relations, as demonstrated by an ethos of thinking-doing-being. For example, worldviews, knowledge and values based on relational principles are often upheld by Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs), that acknowledge Mother Nature, place-based knowledge, kinship and reciprocity. IPLCs, with the GBF, IPBES, and others, are calling for relational principles to be applied to conservation research, policy and practice to assist in halting the perverse effects of the business-as-usual paradigm that threatens biodiversity and social-ecological systems. The rationale for their inclusion is the radically different paradigm of relations have been demonstrated over millenia to foster more sustainable social-ecological conditions. While increasingly recognized as crucial to research, policy and implementation, initiatives aimed at integrating relational principles into the conservation mainstream continue to fall short. This shortfall is indicative of gaps in understanding the fundamental assumptions between different worldviews, knowledge, and values that can be bridged using analytical philosophy.
Analytic philosophy approaches logic, language and ethics in a pragmatic way, using branches of philosophy such as ontology, epistemology and axiology, to methodically identify and contextualize the contents and meanings of a paradigm being expressed without altering them in the process. Metaphysical ontology examines the essence of what exists and the nature of entities, relations, space, and time. Epistemology theorizes the boundaries and body of knowledge by methodologies that delineate the justifiable limits of what is believed to be valid, known and knowable. Axiology brings into question the diversity and classification of values, the notion of worth, and the rules and consequences of judgements. Analytic philosophy seeks to understand the underlying mechanisms and patterns that dictate how relationships are made and change within and between ontology, epistemology, and axiology. This form of analysis provides insights into worldviews, knowledge and values being expressed by their underpinning logic, language, and ethic that together, formulate a paradigm. The ongoing lack of practical knowledge to identify, differentiate, and contextualize the principles underpinning paradigms, limits the capacity to shift paradigms as required to transform biodiversity conservation research, policy and practice.
This thesis applies analytical philosophy techniques to conceptually situate elements that correspond to particular worldviews, knowledge systems and values to develop practical frameworks that can be used to help identify and understand the similarities and differences between paradigms across research, policy and implementation in the context of biodiversity conservation. The frameworks developed through the research process were designed to enable more plural, inclusive and equitable practices, which are needed to improve biodiversity conservation. First, I considered the socio-political ‘landscape’ of global biodiversity conservation, with a focus on the roles of IPLCs (Chapter 1). Then, I spatially and conceptually considered the implications of Target 1 of the GBF Zero Draft that, at the time, was controversial in calling to retain all remaining “wilderness areas” (Chapter 2, Pérez-Hämmerle et al., 2021). Then, to further analyze the inclusivity of the CBD and GBF Drafts towards diverse worldviews, I co-developed a framework designed to more inclusively account for the language and structural approach of biodiversity conservation policy (Chapter 3, Moon and Pérez-Hämmerle, 2022). Building from the framework, real, relative and relational frames of the world were then conceptually situated across research, policy and implementation in the context of power to enable more plural, inclusive and equitable biodiversity conservation practices (Chapter 4, Pérez-Hämmerle et al. in review). I then continue by contextualizing the contributions of the empirical data collected over the course of the PhD that served to metamorphose the methodologies and methods used and inform the development of each Chapter (Chapter 5). The original works presented here provide essential reference points from which the transformative potential of biodiversity conservation research, policy and implementation can emerge. Reflecting on the process of how a paradigm changes through time, I analyzed my own paradigm shift as a researcher, based on principles of relationality, decolonization and diffractive analysis to examine the transformative potential that comes with re-evaluating ways of thinking-doing-being. In conclusion, this thesis shows the strengths and limitations of analytical philosophy as a pragmatic methodology to enhance plural, inclusive and equitable practices and that a paradigm shift across conservation research, policy and implementation must apply relational principles through a process of transformation (Chapter 6).