When all life counts in conservation

Abstract

Conservation science involves the collection and analysis of data. These scientific practices emerge from values that shape who and what is counted. Currently, conservation data are filtered through a value system that considers native life the only appropriate subject of conservation concern. We examined how trends in species richness, distribution, and threats change when all wildlife count by adding so-called non-native and feral populations to the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List and local species richness assessments. We focused on vertebrate populations with founding members taken into and out of Australia by humans (i.e., migrants). We identified 87 immigrant and 47 emigrant vertebrate species. Formal conservation accounts underestimated global ranges by an average of 30% for immigrants and 7% for emigrants; immigrations surpassed extinctions in Australia by 52 species; migrants were disproportionately threatened (33% of immigrants and 29% of emigrants were threatened or decreasing in their native ranges); and incorporating migrant populations into risk assessments reduced global threat statuses for 15 of 18 species. Australian policies defined most immigrants as pests (76%), and conservation was the most commonly stated motivation for targeting these species in killing programs (37% of immigrants). Inclusive biodiversity data open space for dialogue on the ethical and empirical assumptions underlying conservation science.

Challenges at the intersection of conservation and ethics: Reply to Meyer et al. 2021

“…The allegation that what Wallach et al. (2020) call inclusive biodiversity counts would be “relied upon” as an index of ecosystem function extrapolates to a practical application of our analyses that we did not intend or articulate. These and other claims of Meyer et al.…”

“…Yet environmental philosophers have long argued the root cause underpinning the need for conservation is a flawed relationship between (certain) human beings and other life forms, characterized by the view that humans are entitled to manipulate and control other beings to achieve their notion of a desirable world (Mathews 1991; Plumwood 1993). Underpinning Wallach et al.’s (2020) analyses is an ethical outlook that fundamentally challenges the assumption that other (nonhuman) beings are valuable simply as cogs in a machine and instances of their types (i.e., native populations, species, and ecosystems) and considers how biodiversity might be viewed if one took seriously the notion that the lives and deaths of all individual living beings (native and otherwise) matter as well.…”

“…rely heavily on unacknowledged normative language when they use phrases such as “ adverse ,” “ harmful ,” “ distracting ,” and “ overly simplistic ,” among others, to cast aspersions on the contents or presumed implications of Wallach et al. (2020). This is a form of what some scholars call stealth advocacy , in which the pretense is to be engaged in a purely scientific exercise, with implied objectivity, when in fact one is engaged in a policy exercise (i.e., by using language that is normatively loaded or value laden as if it were purely descriptive or objective) (Pielke 2003).…”

“…Against this backdrop, Wallach et al. (2020) opens a new perspective, one that emerges by challenging these 2 dogmas of conservation. Motivated by the sense that individuals matter morally and by the hidden subjectivity inherent in judgments of nativeness, especially in scientific discourse, we wonder how the inclusion of species typically considered non‐native changes assessments of biodiversity loss.…”

The moral residue of conservation

“…Today only ∼10% of the rabbits’ range is in Iberia, whereas ∼60% of their range is in Australia (Wallach et al. 2020).…”