Bridging the GAPS between ecology and human security - Environmental and Human Security in the Arctic - page 142

World Bank, which supports some principle of sustainability (although many
might dispute the commitment to this), and the World Conservation Union
(IUCN), the value of linking poverty and the environment has also been
endorsed (Matthew et al . 2002; World Bank 2005).
Should ecologists engage with the human
security framework?
If you want advice on how to save the planet don't walk into an ecology
department.
Hugh Possingham, March 2009, Fenner Conference
on Environment (Brown et al . 2010:48)
We view the human security framework as providing a more effective means
of addressing the fundamental mismatch between a) what ecology tells us
about limits to growth and b) the goal of sustainable development, com-
pared with other approaches that have been proposed. The human security
framework allows a number of the shortcomings identified by researchers
examining the science-policy gap with respect to ecology to be addressed
explicitly. The framework specifies a process by which many different groups,
individuals, viewpoints and human values can be included in the act of policy
formation (Hoogensen et al . 2009). By making the link between all actors
clear, as well as the web-like, iterative nature of the policy formation process,
the human security framework could enable ecologists who may be fearful of
mixing their Popperian 'objective' scientific method approach (Odenbaugh
2005; Lowe et al . 2009) with human values (Norton 1998; Brown et al . 2010)
to participate in policy discussions without fear of their research being some-
how misused and abused in a subjective manner.
Furthermore, by clarifying how different groups participate in policy for-
mation, the human security approach provides ecologists and scientists with
a generic, adaptable mechanism for addressing the lack of clear policy guide-
lines that is common in these fields (Bocking 2002). Many ecologists tend to
confuse the policy process with the political process. As Norton (1998) has
pointed out, they are often suspicious of bringing any kind of human values
into the equation, and believe that, since the lines between science and policy
advocacy can become blurred, they should be cautious about participating in
policy advocacy (Lackey 2007). In the latter case, the perception that science
is a 'neutral, objective' activity needs to be placed in the context of a values-
based choice being made to pursue this particular approach to scholarship (see
Lélé and Norgaard 2005)!
Additionally, because the human security framework links the individual
to the community and beyond, we view it as being more accessible than other
approaches to mobilizing the messages of ecology. A case in point is the tech-
nical language of the resilience alliance (Hollings 2000) - at a recent policy