Ecosystem services 377
TABLE 1 Normative positions with respect to ecosystem services and poverty alleviation in policy debates and decisions. Position
Narrative emphasis & principles
(1) Ecosystems should be managed to deliver services in ways that facilitate bio- diversity conservation
The conservation of ecosys- tems should be prioritized over poverty concerns; ecosystem services & poverty alleviation policies should be delinked, treated as separate policy domains
(2) Ecosystems should be managed to deliver services in ways that maintain their functional integrity
The maintenance of ecosystem function, including any exist- ing services, should be priori- tized over poverty alleviation
Preferred ecosystem management strategy & policy approaches
Ecosystem management should minimize human interaction with ecosystems: national & natural parks, other types of protected areas (e.g. biosphere reserves, conservation easements)
Sustainable & integrated resource management programmes at multiple scales, prioritizing eco- system functions: biological cor- ridors, sustainable landscapes
(3) Ecosystems should be managed to deliver services in ways that protect & secure the existing lives & liveli- hoods of the poor
Poverty alleviation should be prioritized over ecosystem ser- vices concerns, but avoiding considerable changes in eco- system function & structure
Ecosystem management should focus on providing services (pro- visioning, regulating & support- ing) that sustain the livelihoods of the poor & buffer them from shocks: ecosystem-based adapta- tion initiatives, sustainable liveli- hood approaches
(4) Ecosystems should be managed to deliver services in ways that bring new ben- efits to the poor
Ambivalent about the rela- tionship between ecosystem services & poverty alleviation
Ecosystem management should prioritize the provision of ecosys- tem services that can generate new revenue streams, or maximize ex- isting ones, ideally guaranteeing that the poor control & have ac- cess to these services: novel eco- system management approaches, such as biodiversity or carbon offsetting
(5) Ecosystems should be managed to deliver services in ways that maximize eco- nomic growth
Poverty alleviation should be prioritized over ecosystem ser- vices concerns
Ecosystem management should be geared to provide those services that maximize economic revenue, particularly at national level: in- tensive & market-oriented forms of ecosystem management to generate valuable goods, includ- ing, for example, industrial agri- culture & forestry
value of biodiversity (McCauley, 2006), and typically in- volves the protection of ecosystems that contain rare or un- ique biodiversity, usually through protected areas. It is a traditional conservationist position, where such areas are defined as no-go zones for development. It recognizes the general importance of poverty alleviation and the potential importance of ecosystem services for poverty alleviation (Diaz et al., 2018), but treats this as a separate policy realm, to be pursued using separate strategies, often in
Principal advocates
Actors who interpret biodiversity as species, & think all species are es- sential to the survival of ecosys- tems; others who see a sustainable industry in nature/wildlife tourism
Actors who believe that ecosystem services are essential to human survival, at any scale from local to global, & who stress that ecosystem services management can produce key benefits to people’s livelihoods that could lift them out of poverty
Actors who support resource-based livelihoods & bottom-up, community-based development approaches
Actors who support innovative forms of resource management that might potentially entail a trans- formation of existing ecosystem function & structure
Actors who believe the size of the economy & per capita GDP are the only useful measure of development
different places, such as through land sparing interventions (Balmford et al., 2005). This position allows the possibility of communities living
in or around protected areas to earn a living from employ- ment as park guards, wildlife tourism or payments for eco- system services, often in combination, as, for example, in East Africa, (Sandbrook & Adams, 2012). These benefits from conservation activity may be shared with poor people and contribute to poverty alleviation. Since the 1980s
Oryx, 2020, 54(3), 375–382 © 2018 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605318000261
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148
