Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
the conflict-natural resources nexus. To start, there is a need to put aside the above
confusion concerning natural resources and instead follow a more function-oriented
categorisation of natural resources.
Figure 4.2 presents an analytical scheme that has been adapted from another
model developed by Slootweg and Mollinga (2010) in the context of the Millennium
Environmental Assessment that aimed at conceptual clarity for ecosystem services.
Slootweg and Mollinga (2010) aim to clarify linkages and interactions between
three subsystems, namely the biophysical, societal and resource management sub-
systems. Their model was considered to be a firm base for the model presented
here, one that aims to bring conceptual clarity in natural resources and conflicts.
To this end, we have added relevant information, such as the variety in natural
resources, stakeholders and three key geographical levels (local to global) where
resources are managed. Additionally, Peter Veit's listing of the four main power rela-
tionships in the field of resource allocation has also been added (see Chaudry and
Lynch 2002).
It is worth noting further that the Slootweg and Mollinga (2010) model is the out-
come of a range of improvements made to earlier models that increasingly grasped new
thinking on how best tomodel the relationship between human beings and the (natural)
environment. It has moved from a simple listing of functions of nature to a framework
that differentiates the provision of goods and services -
provisioning services
(such
as food and water),
regulating services
(such as regulation of floods, drought, land
degradation, and disease),
cultural services
(such as recreational, spiritual and other
nonmaterial benefits), and
supporting services
to maintain the other services (such as
soil formation and nutrient cycling). It also recognises
carrying services
, which refer to
the fact that a certain amount of space and substrate is needed for all living organisms
in accordance with their particular environmental requirements.
In addition,
supportive services
are necessary for the production of all other ecosys-
tem services. They differ from other services in that impacts on people are indirect and
slow. “For example, soil formation processes usually play on a time scale that humans
cannot oversee, and yet they are closely linked to the provision service of food pro-
duction. Biodiversity is said to provide an 'insurance' service as the very diversity
itself insures ecosystems against declines in their functioning'' (Slootweg and Mollinga
2010).
In short, the service providing ecosystems are essential for human well-being.
Functions will differ in accordance with region-specific and personal factors of the
stakeholders grouped in the societal subsystem. These specific characteristics will deter-
mine the values stakeholders (including future demands) attach to the environmental
services. Three broad groups of values are differentiated: social values, financial and
economic values, and ecological values.
Social values
refer to the quality of life in its
broadest sense and include food, safety, health and others. A specific social value is
the claim for ecosystem services based on human rights values (e.g., water as a human
right).
Financial and economic values
are related to both direct consumption (e.g.
timber) and the inputs to the production of other goods and services (e.g. water for
irrigation).
Ecological values
refer to the value that society places on or derives from
the maintenance of the earth's life support systems (e.g., biodiversity for future genera-
tions; and ecosystems (e.g. mangroves serving as breeding grounds for fish supporting
and economic activity elsewhere (fisheries)).
Search WWH ::
Custom Search