Event Title
The Value(s) of Biodiversity
Location
Room 108
Start Date
2-7-2012 3:00 PM
End Date
2-7-2012 4:40 PM
Description
Biodiversity today is mainly assessed by the economy. Yet, now both natural sciences and law play a growing part in that field. Our contribution proposes to outline the main biodiversity assessment methods to understand how they are received by law as well as to question their interest and efficiency against the environment protection imperative and to understand the answers offered by the law in regards to biodiversity in terms of “value” or “monetization”.
The legal issue at stake is important as law plays its own part in granting value to biodiversity. This supposes that legal practitioners pay attention to the speeches and analyses made by scientists and economists without law being designed as a mere “toolbox” intended to shape and implement decisions or orientations defined elsewhere. This article proposes to address the manner in which law should find its place in defining the “value” of biodiversity in all its complexity to better protect it. We will advocate for a true collaboration between biodiversity research workers whilst recalling the importance of legal discipline.
We will first propose take stock of the different assessments of biodiversity to outline the law’s originality and weaknesses in that field.
The economic assessment is mainly based on a utilitarian approach to nature and consists in assessing biodiversity by questioning the price agents would be ready to pay to preserve it. Such types of assessments must not conceal the fundamental part played by scientific assessment, as one only efficiently protects what is known. Assessing biodiversity means knowing what biodiversity covers. Indeed, several approaches may be used to define biodiversity: the specific approach; the genetical approach; the eco-systemic one. It is interesting to see to what extent the various disciplines succeed (or not) in translating the scientific complexity of biodiversity.
Law traditionally reveals certain weaknesses in the manner of comprehending biodiversity. By favoring qualifications leaning towards a specific protection of natural elements, law irons out interdependency and complexity within biodiversity. Furthermore, only a small part of biodiversity has a true status. Ordinary biodiversity is considered an element of private property of those who own or use territories, even though it appears as a major determinant of eco-systemic services. We will then review the weaknesses of this static and partial apprehension of biodiversity in terms of its assessment and its protection.
Secondly, it is proposed that we envisage the manner in which law could evolve and participate in protecting biodiversity by better approaching its assessment.
In listening to economists and scientists, the law would base itself on certain biodiversity assessment methods whilst affirming its own voice. With this, current compensation mechanisms of ecological loss have shown signs of evolution. Apart from the fact that European Union law provides a compensation scheme for this type of loss by taking into account the biodiversity ecological assessment by looking into the complexity and the entirety of nature, certain judges have accepted to compensate such loss by awarding damages meant to correspond to the biodiversity value. One may here wonder about the place the economical assessment should or should not occupy in setting a price on biodiversity in case of harm.
Finally, the intent of our contribution is to raise public awareness on the current and future place of law in terms of the various biodiversity assessment methods.
Presentation
The Value(s) of Biodiversity
Room 108
Biodiversity today is mainly assessed by the economy. Yet, now both natural sciences and law play a growing part in that field. Our contribution proposes to outline the main biodiversity assessment methods to understand how they are received by law as well as to question their interest and efficiency against the environment protection imperative and to understand the answers offered by the law in regards to biodiversity in terms of “value” or “monetization”.
The legal issue at stake is important as law plays its own part in granting value to biodiversity. This supposes that legal practitioners pay attention to the speeches and analyses made by scientists and economists without law being designed as a mere “toolbox” intended to shape and implement decisions or orientations defined elsewhere. This article proposes to address the manner in which law should find its place in defining the “value” of biodiversity in all its complexity to better protect it. We will advocate for a true collaboration between biodiversity research workers whilst recalling the importance of legal discipline.
We will first propose take stock of the different assessments of biodiversity to outline the law’s originality and weaknesses in that field.
The economic assessment is mainly based on a utilitarian approach to nature and consists in assessing biodiversity by questioning the price agents would be ready to pay to preserve it. Such types of assessments must not conceal the fundamental part played by scientific assessment, as one only efficiently protects what is known. Assessing biodiversity means knowing what biodiversity covers. Indeed, several approaches may be used to define biodiversity: the specific approach; the genetical approach; the eco-systemic one. It is interesting to see to what extent the various disciplines succeed (or not) in translating the scientific complexity of biodiversity.
Law traditionally reveals certain weaknesses in the manner of comprehending biodiversity. By favoring qualifications leaning towards a specific protection of natural elements, law irons out interdependency and complexity within biodiversity. Furthermore, only a small part of biodiversity has a true status. Ordinary biodiversity is considered an element of private property of those who own or use territories, even though it appears as a major determinant of eco-systemic services. We will then review the weaknesses of this static and partial apprehension of biodiversity in terms of its assessment and its protection.
Secondly, it is proposed that we envisage the manner in which law could evolve and participate in protecting biodiversity by better approaching its assessment.
In listening to economists and scientists, the law would base itself on certain biodiversity assessment methods whilst affirming its own voice. With this, current compensation mechanisms of ecological loss have shown signs of evolution. Apart from the fact that European Union law provides a compensation scheme for this type of loss by taking into account the biodiversity ecological assessment by looking into the complexity and the entirety of nature, certain judges have accepted to compensate such loss by awarding damages meant to correspond to the biodiversity value. One may here wonder about the place the economical assessment should or should not occupy in setting a price on biodiversity in case of harm.
Finally, the intent of our contribution is to raise public awareness on the current and future place of law in terms of the various biodiversity assessment methods.