Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
18.3
Where Has the Ecosystem Services Conceptual
Framework Led Us?
The objective driving our ES-centered research agenda is the desire to produce pol-
icy-relevant research and, like most ES researchers, to protect biodiversity and eco-
system integrity (Cowling et al.
2008
). The next stage in our research program is to
present our research fi ndings to policy makers and facilitate a community dialogue
regarding future regional development. Our assumption was that the ES framework
would facilitate a three-way dialogue among local communities, ecologists, and
land use managers / policy makers, but a more implicit assumption was that this
process would lead to better ecological outcomes than would occur in the absence
of the process. Current paradigms in planning and resource management all point to
the essential need for collaborative planning with local communities and suggest
that top-down conservation planning has not proven successful in many cases
(Fraser et al.
2006
; Adams and Hutton
2007
; Cowling et al.
2008
; Clark
2011
).
These lofty goals are rife with challenges. Below we draw upon quotes and
anecdotes from our various research venues to highlight some of the recurring
dilemmas we face.
18.3.1
Ecosystem Services or Biodiversity?
“If I go to a community and tell them that their development is going to cause a species
extinction and they respond that they don't “value” that species or that the species doesn't
provide them with a service, how does that help me in my job to protect biodiversity?”
— Ecologist, Israel Nature and Parks Authority
“This is a tree and that is a tree - what does it matter which tree, so long as it's nice to look at.”
— Local Israeli government planner in response to seeing several landscape
options based on different species assemblages
While ES literature is explicit regarding the dependence of ES on biodiversity,
we often face decisions that pit ES against biodiversity, or a particular set of ES
(e.g. cultural or provisioning) against another (regulating or supporting). Environmental
NGO offi cials and Nature and Parks Authority representatives express great skepticism
regarding the ES path, suggesting that it leaves little room for preserving biodi-
versity on the basis of its intrinsic value and always places the burden of proof on
conservation agencies to prove the utility of a given species. Other critics of the
ecosystem services concept have foreseen such scenarios (Turnhout et al.
2013
).
Our response, based on international experience and modern conservation planning
theory (Dietz et al.
2003
; Clark
2011
), is that community-integration is crucial and
that top-down policies to preserve biodiversity also carry multiple risks to biodiversity
(Adams and Hutton
2007
). Unfortunately, this claim is diffi cult to prove on a case-by-
case basis because once policy is implemented it is impossible to do a counterfactual
study of what would have happened in the absence of the policy. Nature advocates
therefore often dismiss the ES framework as hopelessly anthropocentric.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search