Welfare Development for All Species: Reducing Inequalities for Sustainable Coexistence

Every society on Earth pursues development – but what does that actually mean? For some, it’s building roads and hospitals. For others, it’s preserving forests and rivers. The challenge is that most development models have focused almost entirely on human welfare, overlooking the millions of other species we share this planet with. True welfare development, however, demands a broader lens – one that reduces inequalities not just among people, but across all living beings, and secures sustainability for generations to come.

Development means different things across cultures 🔗

The idea of “development” is far from universal. In industrialised nations, development has traditionally been measured by GDP growth, infrastructure expansion, and technological advancement. In many Indigenous and rural communities across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, development is tied more closely to the health of ecosystems, communal well-being, and spiritual relationships with the land. These differences matter because the path a society chooses to develop shapes its relationship with other species and the environment.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by the United Nations in 2015 attempted to bridge these perspectives by weaving together economic, social, and environmental targets. Yet even the SDGs have been criticised for being heavily anthropocentric – focused mainly on human prosperity while treating nature as a resource base rather than a community of life with its own value.

The tension is real: developing nations often prioritise immediate poverty reduction while wealthier countries push for environmental safeguards. Bridging these worldviews is essential if we want a model of welfare development that works for all species, not just one.

The environmental development process: social, economic, political, and ecological dimensions 🔗

Development is never just an economic process. It involves deeply intertwined social, economic, political, and ecological dimensions. When a government builds a dam, for instance, it generates electricity (economic), displaces communities (social), reflects policy priorities (political), and floods habitats (ecological). These four dimensions create structures and functions that shape not only human societies but also the complex ecological networks in which we are embedded.

How human societies depend on ecological networks 🔗

Humans exist within intricate webs of ecological relationships. We depend on pollinators for food production, on wetlands for water purification, on forests for climate regulation, and on soil microorganisms for nutrient cycling. These are not abstract “environmental services” – they are the foundation of every economy and every community on Earth. As the concept of multispecies sustainability argues, species’ needs are inherently interdependent, and a sustainability framework that ignores non-human well-being is unlikely to support diverse life on Earth in the long run.

Development processes that fail to account for these ecological connections risk undermining the very systems they depend on. Agriculture that depletes soil biodiversity, urbanisation that fragments wildlife corridors, and industrial activity that pollutes waterways all erode the ecological networks that sustain human welfare itself.

How human actions threaten ecosystems and livelihoods 🔗

The speed and scale at which human development activities are altering the planet is unprecedented. Climate change, deforestation, habitat fragmentation, overexploitation of resources, and pollution are all direct consequences of development choices. These changes don’t just threaten wildlife – they loop back to affect human livelihoods, health, and survival.

Climate change and landscape transformation 🔗

Burning fossil fuels, clearing forests for agriculture, and expanding cities are rapidly changing both the global climate and local landscapes. Rising temperatures shift species’ ranges, disrupt breeding cycles, and alter food webs. Landscape changes fragment habitats, isolating populations and reducing genetic diversity. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) highlights that sustainable development and biodiversity conservation strategies need to be connected and weighed against each other, because disruption of wildlife movement and loss of suitable habitat leads to increases in human-wildlife conflict.

Threats to ecosystem services 🔗

Ecosystem services – the benefits humans derive from healthy ecosystems – are under severe pressure. Pollination, water filtration, flood control, carbon sequestration, and disease regulation all depend on functioning ecosystems with adequate biodiversity. When development activities degrade these systems, the costs fall disproportionately on vulnerable communities. Coastal communities lose flood protection when mangroves are cleared. Smallholder farmers suffer crop losses when pollinator populations decline. Indigenous peoples lose food sovereignty when forests are logged.

As researchers at the Stockholm Environment Institute have pointed out, human and non-human fates are linked, and considering these links allows us to create a more resilient planet for a broader range of beings rather than only a privileged few.

Intergenerational and intragenerational equity: justice across time and space 🔗

One of the most important ethical dimensions of welfare development is the concept of equity – both within the current generation (intragenerational equity) and between current and future generations (intergenerational equity). These principles don’t just apply to humans; they extend to all species affected by our development choices.

Intragenerational equity 🔗

Intragenerational equity refers to the fair distribution of resources, environmental quality, and opportunities among people alive today. The reality is stark: access to clean water, air, and land is heavily determined by economic status, geography, race, and gender. Wealthy nations consume far more resources per capita and generate far more waste than poorer nations, yet the environmental consequences – flooding, drought, species loss – are often felt most acutely in the Global South.

This inequity extends to other species as well. Industrial development in one region can destroy habitats halfway around the world through supply chains and trade. Migratory species that cross borders are particularly vulnerable because their survival depends on conservation efforts across multiple countries with very different development priorities.

Intergenerational equity 🔗

The principle of intergenerational equity holds that each generation has a responsibility to conserve the diversity and quality of the planet’s resource base so that future generations can meet their own needs. This idea, rooted in the 1987 Brundtland Report and the 1972 Stockholm Declaration, essentially creates a fiduciary duty: present generations are custodians, not owners, of the Earth’s ecological heritage.

The challenge is that current development processes often prioritise short-term economic gains over long-term ecological stability. Overfishing depletes marine stocks that future communities will need. Deforestation releases carbon that future generations will have to manage. Species extinctions are permanent – once a species is gone, no future generation can bring it back. The UN’s 2030 Agenda acknowledges the importance of intergenerational equity and recognises that planetary crises like climate change and biodiversity loss will become more devastating if left unchecked.

Justice to all species 🔗

Extending equity to non-human species means recognising that animals and ecosystems have value beyond their utility to humans. In 2022, a UN resolution recognised the relevance of animal welfare for sustainable development – an important step towards acknowledging that other species are stakeholders in our development decisions, not just resources to be exploited. Justice to all species requires that development decisions account for their impacts on wildlife habitats, population viability, and ecological functions. It means asking not just “Is this good for us now?” but “Is this fair to other species and to future generations of all life?”

Response diversity: biodiversity as insurance for the future 🔗

One of the most powerful ecological arguments for preserving biodiversity comes from the concept of response diversity – the idea that different species within the same functional group respond differently to environmental changes. This variation is what keeps ecosystems functioning even when conditions shift dramatically.

What is response diversity? 🔗

In any ecosystem, multiple species often perform similar ecological functions. For example, several species of bees may all pollinate the same crops, or multiple tree species may all contribute to carbon storage. What makes ecosystems resilient is that these functionally similar species don’t all react the same way to environmental stress. Some may thrive in warmer conditions while others do better in cooler ones. Some tolerate drought while others need moisture. This variation in responses is what ecologists call response diversity, and research has shown it is critical to ecosystem resilience and the long-term maintenance of ecosystem functions.

The insurance hypothesis 🔗

The insurance hypothesis, first formalised by Yachi and Loreau in 1999, proposes that biodiversity acts as a form of insurance for ecosystem functioning. Biological insurance theory predicts that in a variable environment, ecosystem properties will vary less in more diverse communities because declines in some species will be offset by increases in others. This creates two key effects: a buffering effect that reduces variability in ecosystem productivity, and a performance-enhancing effect that increases the average level of ecosystem functioning over time.

Think of it in practical terms. A forest with 50 tree species is far more likely to withstand a novel disease, a drought, or a temperature shift than a monoculture plantation. If one species fails, others step in to maintain the forest’s functions – carbon storage, water regulation, habitat provision. Lose that diversity, and the entire system becomes fragile.

Why this matters for welfare development 🔗

The insurance value of biodiversity has direct implications for human welfare. Communities that depend on diverse ecosystems for food, water, and livelihood security are better buffered against environmental shocks. Conversely, development that simplifies ecosystems – replacing diverse forests with monoculture crops, draining wetlands for construction, or overfishing specific species – strips away this natural insurance and leaves both humans and wildlife more vulnerable to future uncertainty.

Preserving functional diversity – the range of ecological roles played by different species – is therefore not a luxury or a sentimental concern. It is a practical necessity for sustainable development. As the insurance hypothesis demonstrates, diverse communities are more likely to contain species with traits that enable adaptation to changing environments, effectively buffering the entire system against the loss of individual species.

Towards a welfare development model that includes all species 🔗

Moving from a human-centred development model to one that genuinely accounts for the welfare of all species is not just an ethical aspiration – it’s an ecological necessity. Several shifts are needed to make this happen.

Integrating multispecies thinking into policy 🔗

Development policies need to move beyond treating nature as a set of “resources” and start recognising ecosystems and species as stakeholders with inherent value. This means incorporating biodiversity impact assessments into every development decision, establishing wildlife corridors alongside infrastructure projects, and ensuring that conservation strategies are woven into economic planning – not treated as an afterthought.

Balancing present needs with future obligations 🔗

The tension between meeting today’s urgent needs – poverty, hunger, healthcare – and preserving ecological systems for the future is real. But it is not an either/or choice. Agroecological farming practices, for instance, can improve food security today while maintaining soil health and biodiversity for tomorrow. Community-based natural resource management can generate livelihoods while protecting habitats. The key is designing development pathways that deliver co-benefits for humans and non-humans alike.

Valuing response diversity in conservation 🔗

Conservation strategies should prioritise not just the number of species saved, but the diversity of functional roles and environmental responses those species represent. Protecting a handful of charismatic species is not enough if the broader web of ecological functions – pollination, decomposition, nutrient cycling, pest control – is allowed to unravel. Maintaining response diversity is what gives ecosystems their ability to adapt to the unpredictable environmental changes ahead.

What do you think? Can welfare development truly be extended to include all species, or will human needs always take priority? How might your own community balance economic development with the ecological needs of the species that share your landscape?

References

1. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/11/3836
2. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/multispecies-sustainability/BC40ADF1FA174AC7979C9F369C049CD4
3. https://www.worldwildlife.org/projects/human-wildlife-coexistence
4. https://www.sei.org/perspectives/sustainable-development-animal-welfare/
5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/intragenerational-equity
6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4165836/
7. https://publicadministration.desa.un.org/intergovernmental-support/cepa/intergenerational-equity
8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23217173/
9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8519139/
10. https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/biodiversity-and-ecosystem-stability-17059965/