The use of categorical principles in biosphere protection But what does the adoption of categorical principles specifically

mean for the political moulding of biosphere protection? In the past a number of authors have tried to specify the minimum requirements for an ethically responsible moral system with respect to biosphere use.These so-called „safe minimum standards“ specify thresholds for the open-ended measurement scale of the consequences of human interventions that may not be exceeded even if there is a prospect of The use of categorical principles 25

great benefits (Randall, 1988; Randall and Farmer, 1995). In order to be able to specify these thresholds in more detail the breakdown into three levels proposed by the Council is helpful (WBGU, 2001).These levels are:

– the global bio-geochemical cycles in which the biosphere is involved as one of the causes, modulator or „beneficiary“,

– the diversity of ecosystems and landscapes that have key functions as bearers of diversity in the biosphere,

– the genetic diversity and the species diversity that are both „the modelling clay of evolution“ and basic elements of ecosystem functions and dynamics.

Where the first level is concerned, in which the functioning of the global ecosystem is at stake, categorical principles are obviously necessary and sensible, provided that no one wants to shake the pri-mary principle of the permanent preservation of the human race.

Accordingly, all interventions in which important substance or energy cycles are significantly influenced at a global level and where globally effective negative impacts are to be expected are categorically prohibi-ted. Usually no stringently causal evidence of the harmful nature of globally relevant information is needed; justified suspicion of such harmfulness should suffice. The Council has already laid down in detail in a proposal for risk valuation and management how the pro-blem of uncertainty in the event of possible catastrophic damage potential should be dealt with (risk type Cassandra: WBGU, 2000).

On the second level, the protection of ecosystems and landscapes, it is much more difficult to draw up categorical rules. Initially, it is obvious that all interventions in landscapes in which the global func-tions mentioned on the first level are endangered must be avoided.

Above and beyond this, it is wise from a precautionary point of view to maintain as much ecosystem diversity as possible in order to keep the degree of vulnerability to the unforeseen or even unforeseeable consequences of anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic interventi-ons as low as possible. Even though it is difficult to derive findings for human behaviour from observations of evolution, the empirically proven statement „he who places everything on one card, always loses in the long run“ seems to demonstrate a universally valid insi-ght into the functioning of systemically organised interactions. For this reason, the conservation of the natural diversity of ecosystems and landscape forms is a categorical principle, whereas the depth of 26 Special principles and standards

intervention allowed should be specified on the basis of principles and standards capable of compensation.

The same can be said for the third level, genetic and species pro-tection. Here too, initially the causal chain should be laid down: spe-cies conservation, landscape conservation, maintaining global func-tions. Wherever this chain is unbroken, a categorical order of conser-vation should apply.These species could be termed „primary key spe-cies“. This includes such species that are not only essential for the specific landscape type in which they occur but also for the global cycles above and beyond this specific landscape type thanks to their special position in the ecosystem. Probably, it will not be possible to organise all species under this functional contribution to the surro-unding ecosystem, but we could also think of groups of species, for example humus-forming bacteria. In second place there are the spe-cies that characterise certain ecosystems or landscapes. Here they are referred to as „secondary key species“. They, too, are under special protection that is not necessarily under categorical reservations.

Their function value, however, is worthy of special attention. Below these two types of species there are the remaining species that per-form ecosystem functions to a greater or lesser extent. What this means for the worthiness for protection of these species and the point at which the precise limit for permitted intervention should be drawn, is a question that can no longer be solved with categorical principles and standards but with the help of compensatory princi-ples and standards. Generally, here, too, as with the issue of ecosy-stem and landscape protection, the conservation of diversity as a strategy of „reinsurance“ against ignorance, global risks and unfore-seeable surprises is recommended.

It remains to be said that from a systemic point of view, a categori-cal ban has to apply to all human interventions where global closed loops are demonstrably at risk (WBGU guard-rail principle model).

Above and beyond this, it makes sense to recognise the conservation of landscape variety (also of ecosystem diversity within landscapes) and of genetic variety and species diversity as basic principles, with-out being able to make categorical judgements abwith-out individual landscape or species types as a result.

The use of categorical principles 27

3.3 The use of compensatory principles and standards in biosphere