#5270 - Nature Conservation Theory - Environmental Law

Eckersely:

• Ecocentric perspectives:

(i) Recognise the full range of human interests in the nonhuman world (going beyond resource conservation or human welfare ecology);

(ii) Recognise interests of nonhumans (yet goes beyond preservationism);

(iii) Recognises interests of future generations of nonhumans; and

(iv) Values more than just the liberty of individual animals (as in animal liberationism) by valuing populations, ecosystems, species and the ecosphere as well as individuals.

Dworkin:

• Describing fish subject of US SC decision – conservationists discovered that the dam, costing $100m, would be likely to destroy the only habitat of the snail darter, a fish of no particular beauty or biological interest or general ecological importance. [Anthropocentric].

Millenium Ecosystem Assessment:

• ‘Ecosystem services’ are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems.

• Include provisioning services (timber, food, water), regulating services (climate, floods, disease), cultural services (recreational, aesthetic, spiritual), and supporting services (soil formation, photosynthesis). Human species fundamentally dependant on flow of ecosystem services.

Reid:

• In biodiversity conservation each species or habitat must be considered individually and acted on as such but also considered as part of a network of ecosystems.

• This contrasts to emissions where greenhouse gasses can be considered as a whole and trade-offs made in the scheme of things.

• Measures to protect blue whales have no benefit for red squirrels. Protecting a wading birds winter habitat is of no use if its summer habitat is then destroyed.

[Implicit in this is that there are winners and losers in all ecosystem conservation decisions – wading bird feeding ground can’t be protected if a car park is to be built there].

Why so many regimes? A good thing?

Why so many?

• Conservation protects many different interests (pluralistic). Protecting beauty and recreational use of land in NPs. Protecting scientific value of land and knowledge in SSSIs. Protecting environment as environment (ecocentric) in NNRs + LNRs?? [See case law on designation of each to show what is being protected – RSPB case on not allowing economic considerations – very much ecological/scientific criteria, same Ex p FCS, purposive reasoning in level of protection cases, Spain].

• Public opinion quickly shifting so schemes alter and increase in volume as new thing need protection. E.g. 2010 Lawton Review vs. Conservative gov wanting to reduce protection to free up land.

• Different techniques for protection of nature. Some address specific species and some address habitats (enclave) (International Trade Regulations on Endangered Species v. SSSI). But HD + BD suggest it’s perfectly possible to mix the two.

• Fact that UK and EU have both legislated independently on the subject of nature conservation. UK has SSSIs, NPs, and NNR/LNR. EU has SACs and SPAs.

Good thing?

• Separate regimes are needed when they protect distinct + different interests in nature.

• Problem since interests protected in above regimes are not distinct. SSSI protects special interests by reason of flora, fauna, geological and physiographical features – NNRs for conservation purposes which defined as provision of special study opportunities of flora, fauna and geographical or physiographical features of special interest. Both protect the same scientific/knowledge anthropocentric interest.

• SPA and SACs both protect flora and fauna that are particularly important or interesting, seems to be the...