380 C. Howe et al.


economic growth through establishing profitable tourism destinations would seek to pursue both goals of conserva- tion and economic growth. Similarly, the wastelands and land degradation narrative suggests that where land cannot be used productively because of its remoteness or hostile en- vironments, then it could be conserved profitably. There are also shades of this thinking in the corporate-focused envir- onmental policies thatmake provision for biodiversity con- servation as a means of enhancing profit.


Discussion and conclusion


We recognize that the positions described here are abstracted. In practice they are often jumbled together in policy documents, websites, and in the minds of policy- makers, and those working in donor organizations and NGOs. IUCN, for example, states in a webpage that ‘pro- tected areas.. . are a mainstay of biodiversity conservation, while also contributing to people’s livelihoods.. .. Protected areas are at the core of efforts towards conserving nature and the services it provides us—food, clean water supply, medicines and protection from the impacts of natural disas- ters’ (IUCN, 2017; our emphasis). They are also jumbled within organizations, in the sense that positions can change over time, for example, Conservation International’s adop- tion of ecosystem services and interests such as human health, which we mentioned above, was part of a radical transformation of the image, brand and ethos of the organ- ization (Conservation International, 2017). Thatmixing of positions is precisely why we have sought


to distinguish them here. The policy rhetoric on ecosystem services and poverty alleviation, with its search for common causes, can serve to erase or obscure fundamental differ- ences in goals or objectives. Failure to acknowledge differ- ences between these positions obscures choices and risks undermining sustainable and just outcomes. Some of the positions we describe may be more strongly


advocated by certain kinds of organizations and actors: thus, biodiversity conservation organizations are likely to empha- size positions 1 and 2, and poverty organizations positions 3 and 4. Because such groups tend to work in places with dif- ferent attributes, there can also be a spatial dimension to the adoption of different positions. Thus, highly diverse forests housing critically endangered endemics may suggest pos- ition 1; a degraded, species-poor secondary forest managed by the government that is a water catchment for down- stream towns may suggest position 2; such a forest held in- securely by smallholders and the focus of an agribusiness land-grab might suggest position 3; if the forest is beautiful and contains remnant rare species it might suggest position 4 (e.g. a community wildlife lodge). If the degraded forest lies over a valuable mineral, a government economist or cor- porate geologist might see potential in position 5, accepting


destruction of the forest to make way for amine to yield tax revenues that can be used for development elsewhere. To some extent spatial solutions, along the lines sug-


gested by integrated landscape approaches (Reed et al., 2016, 2017), may provide a way of resolving differences once they are recognized. However, the same forests can be valued for their contributions to poverty alleviation, or new forms of commodity production. Contests over the role of tourism in the conservation of gorillas provide a clas- sic example (Sandbrook, 2008). Or to put this differently: the positions we describe do not derive from nature, but from the social values through which conservation, develop- ment and economic policies are constructed. In other situations, the different positions may lead to


similar outcomes (where, for example, the needs of forest communities, biodiversity protection and ecosystem integ- rity all demand the maintenance of forest cover). But again this strengthens the need for clarity as to the norma- tive positions underpinning different calls. These positions retain their power to lead stakeholders in different direc- tions. In almost every case where different positions are merged (whether developing carbon trading in inhabited biodiverse forests, or ecotourism within protected areas), there are choices about the degree of ecosystem transform- ation accepted and the balance of local control, which are often associated with different institutional and manage- ment strategies. Acknowledging diverse normative positions will improve decision-making by being more inclusive of the interests of different stakeholder groups and bringing trade- offs onto the negotiating table.


Acknowledgements


This work was funded with support from the Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation (ESPA) Programme [NE/ESPA/010001] (Grant number NE/M007561/1). The ESPA programme is funded by the UK Department for International Development, the Economic and Social Research Council and the Natural Environment Research Council. We also acknowledge the comments provided by Gretchen Daily, Ben Halpern, Jim Salzman, Sarah Anderson, Mark Buntaine and Richard Norgaard to an earl- ier version of the normative positions. EC acknowledges the financial support of the UAB-Banco de Santander Talented Researcher Programme and notes that this article contri- butes to ICTA-UAB ‘María de Maeztu Unit of Excellence’ (MDM-2015-0552).


Author contributions


The authors contributed equally to the development of this article.


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