Open border ecosystems: Against globalised laissez-faire conservation

TL;DR

The paper argues against using free-market economic models in conservation, highlighting the flaws in treating ecosystems as marketplaces.

Contribution

It critiques the application of economic globalization principles to ecological systems and conservation practices.

Findings

Applying free-market logic to ecosystems leads to flawed conservation strategies.

Invasive species replacing local populations is not a valid indicator of ecological efficiency.

The economic metaphor for conservation creates a moral and empirical disconnect.

Abstract

Ecosystems are increasingly being represented as marketplaces that produce goods for humanity, and because of this, economic metaphors for increasing efficiency have been introduced into conservation. A powerful model for economic growth is the globalised free market, and some are implicitly deploying it to suggest changes in conservation practice. Ecological globalisation is the position that we should not control the free movement of species and rewilding occurs most efficiently through non-intervention. When species can move and interact with new ecological systems, they create novel ecosystems. These novel arrangements create experimental markets in nature’s economy, providing opportunities for the efficient production of goods for humans, also known as ecosystem services. When invasive species supersede local populations, it indicates previous biotic systems were inefficient, which is why they were replaced, and therefore, it is wrong to protect indigenous “losers” from extinction. Those who defend indigenous species are accused of being xenophobic against recent biotic migrants. This position is flawed both empirically and morally as there is a disconnect between these economic and political arguments when applied to human economies and nature’s economy.

Figures