Our Upcoming Challenge is not How, but “Who” can value Biodiversity
In the face of unprecedented ecological decline, the Global Biodiversity Framework and the 30 by 30 agreement represent a global commitment to halting biodiversity loss and restoring ecosystems to ensure a safe operating space for humanity by 2050.
This historic agreement, was recently endorsed by 196 countries, pledging to double biodiversity, this ambitious target is driven by the recognition that biodiversity is foundational to our survival and prosperity.
The UBS titled “Bloom or Bust,” starkly highlights that 60% of the world’s GDP is moderately or highly dependent on nature and its ecosystem services, underscoring the economic imperative to act swiftly and decisively.
Despite this amazing and growing appetite from financial institutions to invest in biodiversity, a significant bottleneck remains: the lack of trustworthy metrics for measuring, monitoring, verifying, and certifying biodiversity.
Without these metrics, the estimated annual investment of $850 billion. needed to finance biodiversity initiatives cannot be effectively mobilized.
However, at this critical juncture, the underlying challenge that arises is not only how we measure biodiversity but also who measures it and the depth of their understanding of ecosystems.
The Interconnected Nature of Ecosystem Valuation
Our approach to ecosystem valuation must transcend traditional scientific reductionism, which often dissects life into isolated parts, losing sight of the intricate web of relationships that define ecosystems. Traditional zoology, for example, studies a frog by killing and dissecting it, analyzing its parts in isolation.
This process, while informative, ultimately destroys the essence — or “frogness” — of the creature. To honor the true value of biodiversity, we must adopt a holistic perspective that recognizes the systemic interdependence of all life forms.
The essence of “frogness” encompasses more than the physical frog; it includes the frog’s role in controlling insect populations, serving as prey, and maintaining water quality. Frogs help maintain water quality by preying on insects and algae, contributing to nutrient cycling, and serving as bioindicators of ecosystem health. When we lose this essence, we disrupt the delicate balance of ecosystems, causing trophic cascades that reverberate through the natural world. Thus, understanding biodiversity requires seeing beyond individual species to their roles and relationships within the larger ecological context.
Relativism and Perspectivism in Measuring Biodiversity
Valuing biodiversity is inherently subjective, shaped by the perspectives and conceptual frameworks of those conducting the valuation.
Relativism posits that points of view have no absolute truth; they are relative to individuals or groups. In this light, the perceived value of an ecosystem can vary greatly depending on the evaluator’s background and worldview.
Perspectivism, introduced by Friedrich Nietzsche, asserts that knowledge is always from a particular perspective, with many possible interpretations. Nietzsche believed that all ideations take place from particular perspectives and that there are no objective truths, only interpretations.
This aligns with Immanuel Kant’s philosophy, which suggests that the laws of nature, as we perceive them, exist because our minds interpret them.
In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant argues that our faculty of understanding is the primary source of nature’s lawfulness. He posits that the a priori categories of understanding “prescribe laws to nature,” serving as constitutive a priori principles that shape our experience of the natural world.. (1)
Kant’s concept of the transcendental idealism posits that our senses and reason act as lenses through which we perceive the world. This insight highlights the importance of considering who is doing the measuring and their level of systemic understanding.
Living Systems and Transcontextual Stability
Living system perspectives provide a deeper understanding by emphasizing the proprietary dimension of ecosystem reality. This viewpoint sees ecosystems as dynamic, interconnected webs of life characterized by continuous transformability and transformation of relationships. The focus is on the dynamic processes within ecosystems that strive for transcontextual stability — maintaining balance and resilience across various contexts and interactions. While similar to homeostasis, transcontextual stability is broader, involving a dynamic balance that accommodates change and sustains the ecosystem’s functionality and health.
Moreover, the more we interpret the behavior of ecosystems in terms of energetic states within an integral network, rather than through intentional beliefs, the deeper our understanding becomes. This approach focuses on energy flows and transformations within ecosystems, offering insights into the patterns and processes that govern their behavior. Moving beyond anthropocentric interpretations allows for a more objective view of how ecosystems function and thrive.
Rationalism, Empiricism, and Ecosystem Services
In valuing biodiversity, both rationalism— the belief that knowledge comes from reasoning — and empiricism— the belief that knowledge comes from experience — play crucial roles. A balanced approach that incorporates abstract reasoning and empirical observation is essential for comprehensive ecosystem valuation.
Ecosystem services, the emergent properties of ecosystems, benefit not only the specific ecosystems but also the broader ecological networks in which they are nested. These services, such as carbon sequestration and water purification, illustrate how the health of one ecosystem impacts larger systems.
Reflecting on Historical Perspectives
In the 17th century, the British philosopher Francis Bacon proclaimed, “The world has been created at the service of man.” This anthropocentric view was echoed by René Descartes, who affirmed that animals were “automatons,” incapable of reasoning and therefore inferior to humans. Descartes also declared, “Humans are the masters and possessors of nature.”
In stark contrast, Alexander von Humboldt, in his work The Invention of Nature, conceived the Earth as a great living organism in which everything was related, generating a new vision of nature as early as 1802. Humboldt’s interpretation was that the natural world was a united, animated system, animated by interactive forces. He emphasized the importance of examining differences and similarities without losing sight of the whole.
If Bacon and Descartes were asked to value ecosystem services today, their perspectives might starkly contrast with contemporary understanding. Their reductionist and human-centric views would likely fail to appreciate the complex interdependencies and intrinsic value of ecosystems. Humboldt’s holistic vision, on the other hand, aligns more closely with modern ecological thinking, recognizing the interconnectedness and dynamic relationships that sustain life on Earth.
The Path Forward
To meet the ambitious goals of the Global Biodiversity Framework, we must adopt a more inclusive and holistic approach to measuring and valuing biodiversity. Recognizing the relativistic and perspectivist nature of value allows for more comprehensive assessments that account for multiple perspectives and the complex, interrelated factors that contribute to an ecosystem’s true worth.
Moreover, understanding that we are part of nature and that our valuation of biodiversity is shaped by our interconnectedness with the natural world is crucial. We cannot truly value nature without acknowledging that we are nature, interconnected and interdependent with the biodiversity around us.
It’s funny because as I’m writing this article I read just today in the Guardian that dictionaries are urged to include humans in their definition of Nature. And the Oxford English Dictionary defines Nature as an entity separate from and opposed to humans and human’s creations. So now there is a movement for dictionaries to reflect their scientific fact and overwhelming consensus that humans are part of nature.
Nature,” the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) says, is “the phenomenon of the physical world collectively; esp plants, animals and other features and products of the earth itself, as opposed to humans and human creations”.
As we strive to develop trustworthy metrics for measuring biodiversity, we must ensure that those who measure it possess a deep, systemic understanding of ecosystems.
For example, an ecologist with a deep understanding of complexity theory might see an old-growth forest as an invaluable reservoir of biodiversity, a critical component of global climate regulation, and a source of countless ecosystem services. In contrast, a developer with a reductionist viewpoint might view the same forest primarily as potential land for commercial development, focusing on the economic benefits of timber and real estate.
This divergence underscores the importance of adopting a more inclusive and holistic approach to ecosystem valuation. Recognizing the relativistic and perspectivist nature of value allows for a more comprehensive assessment that takes into account multiple perspectives and the complex, interrelated factors that contribute to an ecosystem’s true worth. Moreover, embracing living system perspectives enables us to appreciate the proprietary dimension of ecosystem reality, acknowledging the continuous transformation and inherent stability of ecological relationships.
In conclusion, the concepts of relativism, perspectivism, and living systems reveal that ecosystem valuation is inherently subjective and context-dependent. By embracing a systemic approach and recognizing the diverse ways in which ecosystems can be valued, we can move towards more balanced and sustainable environmental management practices.
Are we going to kill the frog and look at it from a reductionist perspective, commoditizing it into a financial instrument, or are we going to look at nature as a common resource that needs to be nourished and measure it by its true value of its ecosystem services, creating instruments that foster regeneration, that foster and incentivize the creation of life?
This shift is essential not only for meeting global biodiversity targets but also for honoring the intricate web of life that sustains us all. Only by seeing ourselves as part of this grand tapestry can we hope to honor and preserve the true essence of biodiversity and ensure a safe operating space for humanity.
Before You Leave!
If you relate to this story, I would greatly appreciate you clicking the 👏button. You can hold it down up to 50 claps and this will help this story get more exposure and this narrative more support. If you feel the calling please reach out privately or leave a comment below
Thanks for your support!
