Ecosystem services 379
Additionally, if there is a choice between, for example, the valuable provisioning services of a prawn farm and the regu- lating services of mangroves, or between the benefits from grazing in a catchment forest and the water needs of a down- stream town, advocates of this position would be inclined to favour options that enhance supporting services and pro- poor outcomes. They would typically include NGOs with a rural development focus, which advocate for resource- based livelihoods and community governance structures (Rangan, 2000).
(4) Ecosystems should be managed to deliver services in ways that bring new benefits to the poor.
This position emphasizes the potential of new market-
based instruments to create commodities whose trade can benefit the poor, and particularly address income poverty. It suggests that ecosystems should be managed to enable services such as carbon sequestration, watershed regula- tion or pollination to be traded or paid for in ways that help finance a pathway out of poverty. Payments for standing forests or increased carbon stocks (REDD+) are examples of such mechanisms, if coupled with arrange- ments for community control of forest resources and if re- sulting revenue streams are a means to enable impacts on poverty reduction (Phelps et al., 2012). An example of this is Mexico’s investment plans to realize avoided deforest- ation emissions through conservation payments and sus- tainable resource management activities in targeted landscapes. The landscape focus resonates with position 2 but is distinctive to the extent it expects to recover such investment through carbon markets and uses reven- ues for upscaling. This position places high importance on poverty allevi-
ation, and accepts a relatively high degree of environmental transformation. In conservation circles it can be used to ad- vocate for new forms of community-based natural resource management that devolve power over wildlife or forest re- sources to local groups and at the same time increase the ex- tent of protected land by allowing those groups to establish community-managed hunting or forest reserves. As some have argued, we need to see such arrangements as a form of payment for ecosystem services (Naidoo et al., 2011; Corbera, 2012), but we also need to recognize they are a distinctive form of poverty alleviation that differ from pos- ition 3 in the innovation and entrepreneurship they entail. As a result of this ingenuity, considerable new profit-making opportunities are being developed to benefit local groups (Murphree, 2001). At the same time, as we observed above, this sort of win-win outcome is rare. The scale of change re- quired to rework societies, landscapes and ecosystem man- agement can also cause these schemes to fail with respect to poverty alleviation (Igoe & Croucher, 2007) and conserva- tion (Scullion et al., 2011) goals. Regardless of the outcome, however, the point is that this position is marked with the
ambition of realizing newincome streams and new manage- ment arrangements to achieve them. This position can lead to outcomes similar to those from
position 1 (i.e. biodiversity conservation through protected or voluntary conserved areas) if new income streams en- hance the sustainability of existing natural ecosystems by in- creasing the value of existing services. However, outcomes will differ from position 1 where ecosystem management in- volves transformed land management. It shares outcomes with position 2, ecosystem function, although the focus is on the monetization of benefit streams through ecosystem service payments, rather than just maintaining ecosystem integrity. It might also share outcomes with position 3, live- lihood security, except that its aim is specifically to create new revenue streams, and therefore it involves amove away from existing, traditional or indigenous ways of life, and particularly a move to market-based transactions over re- sources. Advocates of this position encompass NGOs and government agencies interested in applying novel ecosystem management approaches and technologies to development solutions within market-based or donor-driven strategies.
(5) Ecosystems should be managed to deliver services in ways that maximize economic growth.
This position follows the standard model of develop-
ment, which holds that the most effective way to reduce pov- erty is to maximize economic growth, allowing benefits to trickle down to the poor. It accepts potentially radical trans- formation of ecosystems to achieve economic development (e.g. the creation of infrastructure such as dams or roads, new mines or intensive agriculture) although good practice will seek to minimize environmental impacts and maintain ecosystem integrity (position 2). Position 5 differs from pos- ition 4 because it emphasizes the efficient production of eco- system goods and services from which benefits can be distributed to the poor, rather than rewarding the direct control or management of those ecosystems and benefits by the poor themselves. Its concern is to make people less poor by moving them out of unproductive areas of the econ- omy, which are predominantly rural, resource-based liveli- hoods and into more productive areas, predominantly, industrial and service industries (Collier & Dercon, 2014; Dercon & Gollin, 2014). This position may appear to have little merit for conser-
vationists, but its influence is visible in some conservation discussions. Implicit in the land-sparing versus land- sharing debate for example is the notion that land which is not conserved will be used as intensively as possible, to maximize provisioning services that can enhance human welfare (Balmford et al., 2005). In this respect positions 1 and 5 can, metaphorically, occupy common ground. Some green development schemes (such as our opening examples from Tanzania and St Lucia) find space for nature because that space can also be profitable. The pursuit of green
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
