Abstract
Natura 2000 is a network of natural sites whose aim is to preserve species and habitats of relevance in the European Union. The policy underlying Natura 2000 has faced widespread opposition from land users and received extensive support from environmentalists. This paper addresses the ethical framework for Natura 2000 and the probable moral assumptions of its main stakeholders. Arguments for and against Natura 2000 were analyzed and classified according to “strong” or “weak” versions of the three main theories of environmental ethics – anthropocentrism, biocentrism, and ecocentrism. Weak (intergenerational) anthropocentrism was found to underlie the Natura 2000 network itself and the positions of environmentalists, while strong (traditional) anthropocentrism pervaded the positions of economic developers. Land users seemed to fall somewhere between weak and strong anthropocentrism. The paper discusses the relation between ethics and different attitudes towards Natura 2000, highlighting some of the implications for the network’s ongoing implementation. It is shown that Natura 2000 achieves a strong reversal of the burden of proof from conservation to economic development and land use change under anthropocentrism. It is argued that the alleged theoretical divide between anthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism in relation to the burden of proof does not seem to hold in practice. Finally, it is predicted that the weak versions of anthropocentrism, biocentrism, and ecocentrism, are likely to converge extensively in respect to nature conservation policy measures
Keywords anthropocentrism  biocentrism  burden of proof  convergence  ecocentrism  environmental ethics  nature conservation policy
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10806-005-0634-2
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 62,205
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Relevance of Environmental Ethical Theories for Policy Making.Mikael Stenmark - 2009 - In Ben A. Minteer (ed.), Environmental Ethics. Temple University Press. pp. 135-148.

View all 6 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Environmental Ethics and Weak Anthropocentrism.Bryan G. Norton - 1984 - Environmental Ethics 6 (2):131-148.
A Pragmatic Reconsideration of Anthropocentrism.Eric Katz - 1999 - Environmental Ethics 21 (4):377-390.
Why Norton's Approach is Insufficient for Environmental Ethics.Laura Westra - 2009 - In Ben A. Minteer (ed.), Environmental Ethics. Temple University Press. pp. 279-297.
Rethinking Environmental Ethics: A Case for Holism.Ayo Fadahunsi - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 23:21-27.
Environmental Value and Anthropocentrism.William Grey - 1998 - Ethics and the Environment 3 (1):97 - 103.
Ecocentrism as Anthropocentrism.Martin Drenthen - 2011 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 14 (2):151 - 154.
The Relevance of Environmental Ethical Theories for Policy Making.Mikael Stenmark - 2009 - In Ben A. Minteer (ed.), Environmental Ethics. Temple University Press. pp. 135-148.
A Typology of Corporate Environmental Policies.Michel Dion - 1998 - Environmental Ethics 20 (2):151-162.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-11-22

Total views
35 ( #307,280 of 2,444,736 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #457,256 of 2,444,736 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes