Beyond the “Bear Minimum” of Conservation
In a paper titled, “The bear minimum: Reintroduction and the weaknesses of minimalist conservation,” authors Lee Brann, Alexander Lee, and Benjamin Hale tackle the different approaches to conservation and discuss why the “bear minimum” isn’t enough.
Photo Credit: Kevyn Jalone, NPS
According to Brann et al., conservation in the US today follows the ideals of “conservation minimalism,” or managing land to meet “minimum standards for the protection of nature” (2023). Setting minimums for conservation is common, particularly in environmental policy; however, this often causes one conservation goal to be prioritized at the detriment of others, and there is not always a long-term plan in place for sustaining the goal (Brann et al., 2023).
Brann et al. further examine these philosophies in the case of California’s extinct grizzly bears (Ursus arctos californicus), which I will not discuss in-depth in this post.
Philosophies on Environmental Conservation
Much of the paper discusses environmental philosophy in conservation, with the authors posing the question, what exactly is the “guiding principle” of conservation (Brann et al., 2023)? Brann et al. lay out several different philosophies of conservation - including minimalism, maximalism, old conservation, and new conservation - discussing the history, positives, and negatives of each approach. In examining varieties of minimalism, authors point out the drawbacks of each:
“Mere existence” minimalism: ensures at least one individual of a species is alive somewhere in the world, preserving genetic information and boosting public understanding of the species in hopes of encouraging conservation efforts (Brann et al., 2023). This is often insufficient to “support widely agreed-upon conservation goals” (2023).
“Viability” minimalism: ensures a bare minimum population of a species so that it will not go extinct within a defined (or undefined) timeframe (Brann et al., 2023). This philosophy provides the basis for our Endangered Species Act in the US and is attractive to policymakers; however, it may require frequent reexamination as environmental conditions change in the future (2023).
“Sustainability” minimalism: manages a species to ensure survival, based on a projection of future conditions, and to allow for continued human consumption or benefit (Brann et al., 2023). This often intersects with other aspects of environmental ethics and economics; in addition, there is risk in managing for a projected future minimum, as there is a large degree of uncertainty in many models due to our rapidly changing climate.
“Path of least resistance” minimalism: protecting land or species that are not threatened because it is generally “easy to achieve, cheap, and not in competition with alternative interests” (Brann et al., 2023). Little action is taken and few sacrifices are made for the goal of conservation; this is like checking a conservation and sustainability box without truly investigating the most impactful action (2023).
“Habitat” minimalism: protecting the minimum amount of habitat needed for a species’ continued survival, regardless of projected future habitat or past reductions in habitat (Brann et al., 2023).
What are the alternatives? “Maximalism,” the goal of protecting all of nature, is impractical; there are many limiting factors on the amount of nature that can be preserved, including economic and social concerns (Brann et al., 2023). “Optimalism” also depends on identifying a target for conservation, but aims to find balance between human needs and conservation (Brann et al., 2023). “Rationalism” suggests finding the overlap between what is beneficial for nature or specific species and what is beneficial to humans; however, this overlap is not always present or clear (Brann et al., 2023).
Photo Credit: PickPic
The authors instead advocate for “Reasonabilism:” promoting conservation between “rational and reasonable” practitioners, rights holders, and stakeholders to determine how to address a conservation goal (Brann et al., 2023). This allows for discussion of “relevant ethical, political, economic, and practical concerns that factor into [conservation] decisions,” and can even lead to institutional changes such as “designing and implementing good institutions… [and] not waiting until something is endangered to conserve it” (Brann et al., 2023). In other words, reasonabilism “shifts conservation from a reflexive reaction to the loss of value - value, incidentally, that will forever be in contention - to a more proactive pursuit” (Brann et al., 2023).
Why is Environmental Philosophy Important?
Since my interest is in ecology, environmental philosophy feels like a completely different subject, and learning about these topics feels very different from reading ecological studies for me. While environmental philosophy, or ethics, is not always sharing new scientific findings or methods, it is definitely about sharing observations of how humans interact with the idea of conservation - something which I do every day, but do not often stop to think about. In addition to learning about the “reasonabilism” approach, which I find adjacent to ideas of interdisciplinary science and boundary work, this paper allowed me to slow down and examine assumptions and ethics regarding conservation and think critically about our approach to conservation within institutions.
While many conservationists operate under principles of minimalism - conserving the bare minimum of individuals in a species or habitat - this excludes other important conservation goals, does not account for future conditions under climate change, and will often fall short of conservation needs. Brann et al. suggest “reasonabilism” as an alternative, which takes focus off the value of nature and instead aims to achieve conservation goals discussed by all practitioners, rights holders, and stakeholders involved in a decision. It is important to step back and think critically about our approaches to conservation on both a personal and institutional scale to best affect change.
Read CU Boulder’s interview with author and Associate Professor Benjamin Hale here, and find the published paper at the citation below.
Brann, L., Lee, A., & Hale, B. (2023). The bear minimum: Reintroduction and the weaknesses of minimalist conservation. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 14, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-023-00865-2.
