What exactly do you mean by âreducing global biodiversity lossâ? Decreasing the number of species going extinct? If so, are you overwhelmingly focussing on invertebrates and plants, which account for the vast majority of species?
Have you considered incorporating some considerations related to increasing welfare in your research on reducing biodiversity loss?
Giving Green are welcome to correct me on this (Iâm invoking Cunninghamâs law here) -- the impression I got from their strategy report is âthis isnât that straightforward to answerâ
while they donât explicitly define biodiversity loss, let alone use a single quantitative metric like you guessed, they do reference IUCN Red List-based âpercent of species threatened with extinctionâ and Davidâs dominance scores to justify their analytical focus on land use change as the most dominant biodiversity loss driver
the metrics they looked at for their âproblem scaleâ heuristic for assessing philanthropic strategies are varied:
For land use change, we looked at the surface area of land conversion avoided as a heuristic for scale, while weighing this against the importance of different biomes in terms of ecosystem services. For overfishing, we used heuristics such as the harmfulness and extent of fishing practices and the percentage of fish caught.
they pragmatically proxied loss reduction by focusing on loss drivers instead, which are the subject of most of the report, as thatâs where comparative data is available:
Because biodiversity is an inherently multi-dimensional and non-fungible good, comparing specific impact strategies in terms of scale is methodologically challenging. For this reason, we prioritized among the five direct drivers of biodiversity loss, for which quantitative comparisons in scale exist.
the loss driver indicator they picked, ecosystem services, is focused on the benefits humans derive from ecosystems so my guess to your 2nd question is âprobably notâ, but they did guardrail against strategies potentially harmful to animals, cf. these 2 guiding principles (out of 8 total) they used to identify promising funding opportunities:
Ecosystem services: While there are many indicators for biodiversity, we decided to focus on ecosystem services as the biodiversity indicator to prioritize. Since ecosystem services describe the benefits that humans derive from ecosystems, this definition is closest to Giving GreenĘźs mission to maximize human and ecological well-being. In practice, there are often no concrete quantitative indicators of ecosystem services for the strategies that we evaluate, so we often rely on heuristics from other indicators.
Co-benefits for humans and animals: In principle, co-benefits for human health, development, and animal welfare were not part of our prioritization, but we took care to not recommend strategies that may cause harm.
They referenced the Ecosystem Services Valuation Database for the data above, which yields tables like this, caveating that these estimates âare compiled across multiple studies which differ in methods and scope, and therefore should only be seen as a rough indication of the monetary value of different biomes rather than an exact comparisonâ
Why not just pick number of species going extinct? My guess is the argument across these scattered quotes from Founders Pledgeâs guide to ecosystem philanthropy, cited in GGâs report:
⌠while biodiversity is a useful measure of an ecosystemâs organizational and structural health, it should not be used as the sole objective to maximize for philanthropists who are interested in the protection of ecosystems more broadly. Intuitively one might argue that conservation should maximize the worldâs biodiversity as the abundance and diversity of species are worth protecting. However, using biodiversity as its own metric runs into various issues (see Brennan and Lo 2022 for a further overview). âŚ
Biodiversity vs wilderness
The focus of protecting and restoring ecosystems is to preserve the natural state of an ecosystem before human interference. This focus on wilderness (or naturalness) often comes in conflict with pure biodiversity maximization. For example, in arid ecosystems, human use can bring about higher biodiversity: a farm built in a desert landscape will provide more habitat for species than the original ecosystem did. Similarly, Brennan (1988) describes temperate forests in which limited land clearing increases the diversity of tree species. A response to this critique might be that, at least among conservation projects, one should choose those that most guard against biodiversity loss. However, even in this limited case, biodiversity is just one consideration among many. Many areas that are regarded as important to conserve, such as many US national parks, are generally lower in biodiversity and instead prized because they are deemed aesthetic or sublime (Sarkar 2005). As such, a primary focus on biodiversity would likely rule out many ecosystems widely deemed important to conserve and could even suggest actions that would go against the preservation of natural ecosystems. Rather, biodiversity should be one consideration among many.
Biodiversity vs Ecosystem Vigor & Services
Many of the most productive ecosystems are not very species-rich. Similarly, the ecosystems that provide the most services for humans are on average lower in biodiversity (such as salt marshes for water filtration). As such, a focus on biodiversity alone might lead to prioritizing ecosystems that are high in different species but are not vibrant in the sense that they contain relatively few ecological processes or provide few services for humans (Brennan and Lo 2022). Biodiversity is therefore best understood as an element of ecosystem health rather than its own metric based on which to prioritize. âŚ
Heuristics for prioritization
There are various metrics in the conservation field that one might use as heuristics for prioritizing. Biodiversity, the abundance and diversity of species, for example, has intuitive appeal. However, as described above, it often runs counter to other considerations such as wilderness/ânaturalness and the functioning of ecosystems. Another metric, ecosystem health, provides a more holistic framework to measure the ecological integrity of ecosystems. Prominent models focus on the organization and functional structures of ecosystems and their resilience. As such, they capture a more complete range of ecosystem integrity, and align more closely with the popular notion of âprotecting vibrant ecosystemsâ. Philanthropists should focus on interventions that look at ecosystems holistically, aiming to preserve their structure, functioning, and resilience as opposed to focussing on singular metrics such as biodiversity maximization.
also re: your 2nd question, FPâs guide also has a short section on how theyâre âuncertain about any particular prioritization (of ecosystem protection based on reducing animal suffering) at this pointâ, due to population ethics dilemmas and uncertainty over whether wild animal lives âare on net lives of sufferingâ, and Iâm guessing GGâs report implicitly adopts this stance.
Couldnât have summarized it better myself. Thanks, Mo!
Have you considered incorporating some considerations related to increasing welfare in your research on reducing biodiversity loss?
Iâm sympathetic to the idea that the welfare of wild animals matters for biodiversity work. In the end, we decided to base or prioritization on Davidâs scores based on multiple biodiversity indicators rather than wild animal welfare, because the latter lens comes with empirical and moral uncertainty. (Such as the population effects that Mo mentioned and which you frequently write about.)
Nonetheless, I think some interventions we consider, such as alternative proteins, bycatch mitigation, and fish meal reliance can also benefit (wild or farmed) animals, albeit not per se in the most cost-effective way.
Nonetheless, I think some interventions we consider, such as alternative proteins, bycatch mitigation, and fish meal reliance can also benefit (wild or farmed) animals, albeit not per se in the most cost-effective way.
I think it is important to explicitly give weight to welfare considerations. I do not expect any of the above to robustly increase welfare. However, discussing them in the context of increasing welfare could contribute towards strengthening the wild animal welfare movement.
Hi Soem.
What exactly do you mean by âreducing global biodiversity lossâ? Decreasing the number of species going extinct? If so, are you overwhelmingly focussing on invertebrates and plants, which account for the vast majority of species?
Have you considered incorporating some considerations related to increasing welfare in your research on reducing biodiversity loss?
Giving Green are welcome to correct me on this (Iâm invoking Cunninghamâs law here) -- the impression I got from their strategy report is âthis isnât that straightforward to answerâ
while they donât explicitly define biodiversity loss, let alone use a single quantitative metric like you guessed, they do reference IUCN Red List-based âpercent of species threatened with extinctionâ and Davidâs dominance scores to justify their analytical focus on land use change as the most dominant biodiversity loss driver
the metrics they looked at for their âproblem scaleâ heuristic for assessing philanthropic strategies are varied:
they pragmatically proxied loss reduction by focusing on loss drivers instead, which are the subject of most of the report, as thatâs where comparative data is available:
the loss driver indicator they picked, ecosystem services, is focused on the benefits humans derive from ecosystems so my guess to your 2nd question is âprobably notâ, but they did guardrail against strategies potentially harmful to animals, cf. these 2 guiding principles (out of 8 total) they used to identify promising funding opportunities:
They referenced the Ecosystem Services Valuation Database for the data above, which yields tables like this, caveating that these estimates âare compiled across multiple studies which differ in methods and scope, and therefore should only be seen as a rough indication of the monetary value of different biomes rather than an exact comparisonâ
Why not just pick number of species going extinct? My guess is the argument across these scattered quotes from Founders Pledgeâs guide to ecosystem philanthropy, cited in GGâs report:
also re: your 2nd question, FPâs guide also has a short section on how theyâre âuncertain about any particular prioritization (of ecosystem protection based on reducing animal suffering) at this pointâ, due to population ethics dilemmas and uncertainty over whether wild animal lives âare on net lives of sufferingâ, and Iâm guessing GGâs report implicitly adopts this stance.
Couldnât have summarized it better myself. Thanks, Mo!
Iâm sympathetic to the idea that the welfare of wild animals matters for biodiversity work. In the end, we decided to base or prioritization on Davidâs scores based on multiple biodiversity indicators rather than wild animal welfare, because the latter lens comes with empirical and moral uncertainty. (Such as the population effects that Mo mentioned and which you frequently write about.)
Nonetheless, I think some interventions we consider, such as alternative proteins, bycatch mitigation, and fish meal reliance can also benefit (wild or farmed) animals, albeit not per se in the most cost-effective way.
Thanks for the follow-up, Soem.
I think it is important to explicitly give weight to welfare considerations. I do not expect any of the above to robustly increase welfare. However, discussing them in the context of increasing welfare could contribute towards strengthening the wild animal welfare movement.
Thanks for the detailed clarification, Mo.