Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Acknowledging Conservation Trade-Offs and Embracing Complexity

2010; Wiley; Linguagem: Espanhol

10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01608.x

1523-1739

Paul Hirsch, William M. Adams, J. Peter Brosius, Asim Zia, Nino Bariola, Juan Luis Dammert,

Land Use and Ecosystem Services

Conservation BiologyVolume 25, Issue 2 p. 259-264 Essay Acknowledging Conservation Trade-Offs and Embracing Complexity Reconocimiento los Trade-offs de la Conservación y Atención a la Complejidad PAUL D. HIRSCH, PAUL D. HIRSCH Center for Environmental Policy and Administration, Maxwell School of Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244-1020, U.S.A., email [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorWILLIAM M. ADAMS, WILLIAM M. ADAMS Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Downing Pace, Cambridge CB2 3EN, U.K.Search for more papers by this authorJ. PETER BROSIUS, J. PETER BROSIUS Center for Integrative Conservation Research, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this authorASIM ZIA, ASIM ZIA Department of Community Development and Applied Economics, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this authorNINO BARIOLA, NINO BARIOLA Departamento de Humanidades, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Avenida Universitaria 1801, San Miguel, Lima, PerúSearch for more papers by this authorJUAN LUIS DAMMERT, JUAN LUIS DAMMERT Departamento de Ciencias Sociales, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Avenida Universitaria 1801, San Miguel, Lima, PerúSearch for more papers by this author PAUL D. HIRSCH, PAUL D. HIRSCH Center for Environmental Policy and Administration, Maxwell School of Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244-1020, U.S.A., email [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorWILLIAM M. ADAMS, WILLIAM M. ADAMS Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Downing Pace, Cambridge CB2 3EN, U.K.Search for more papers by this authorJ. PETER BROSIUS, J. PETER BROSIUS Center for Integrative Conservation Research, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this authorASIM ZIA, ASIM ZIA Department of Community Development and Applied Economics, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this authorNINO BARIOLA, NINO BARIOLA Departamento de Humanidades, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Avenida Universitaria 1801, San Miguel, Lima, PerúSearch for more papers by this authorJUAN LUIS DAMMERT, JUAN LUIS DAMMERT Departamento de Ciencias Sociales, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Avenida Universitaria 1801, San Miguel, Lima, PerúSearch for more papers by this author First published: 17 November 2010 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01608.xCitations: 49Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Abstracten Abstract: There is a growing recognition that conservation often entails trade-offs. A focus on trade-offs can open the way to more complete consideration of the variety of positive and negative effects associated with conservation initiatives. In analyzing and working through conservation trade-offs, however, it is important to embrace the complexities inherent in the social context of conservation. In particular, it is important to recognize that the consequences of conservation activities are experienced, perceived, and understood differently from different perspectives, and that these perspectives are embedded in social systems and preexisting power relations. We illustrate the role of trade-offs in conservation and the complexities involved in understanding them with recent debates surrounding REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation), a global conservation policy designed to create incentives to reduce tropical deforestation. Often portrayed in terms of the multiple benefits it may provide: poverty alleviation, biodiversity conservation, and climate-change mitigation; REDD may involve substantial trade-offs. The gains of REDD may be associated with a reduction in incentives for industrialized countries to decrease carbon emissions; relocation of deforestation to places unaffected by REDD; increased inequality in places where people who make their livelihood from forests have insecure land tenure; loss of biological and cultural diversity that does not directly align with REDD measurement schemes; and erosion of community-based means of protecting forests. We believe it is important to acknowledge the potential trade-offs involved in conservation initiatives such as REDD and to examine these trade-offs in an open and integrative way that includes a variety of tools, methods, and points of view. Abstractes Resumen: Cada vez hay un mayor reconocimiento de que la conservación a menudo conlleva trade-offs. Un enfoque en los trade-offs puede abrir el camino hacia una consideración más completa de los efectos positivos y negativos asociados con las iniciativas de conservación. Sin embargo, al analizar los trade-offs de la conservación es importante atender las complejidades inherentes al contexto social de la conservación. En particular, es importante reconocer que las consecuencias de las actividades de conservación son experimentadas, percibidas y comprendidas de manera diferente desde perspectivas diversas, y que estas perspectivas se insertan en sistemas sociales y relaciones de poder preexistentes. Ilustramos el papel de los trade-offs en la conservación y las complejidades que implica su entendimiento con debates recientes en torno de REDD (Reducción de Emisiones por Deforestación y Degradación), una política de conservación global diseñada para crear incentivos para reducir la deforestación tropical. A menudo descrito en términos de los múltiples beneficios que puede proporcionar – disminución de la pobreza, conservación de biodiversidad y mitigación de cambio climático – REDD puede implicar trade-offs sustanciales. Las ganancias de REDD podrían implicar la reducción de incentivos para que los países industrializados reduzcan sus emisiones de carbono; la reubicación de la deforestación en sitios no afectados por REDD; el incremento de la inequidad en lugares donde la gente que vive de los bosques no tiene certeza sobre la tenencia de la tierra; la pérdida de diversidad biológica y cultural que no se alinea directamente con los esquemas de REDD; y la erosión de los medios comunitarios para la protección de bosques. Consideramos que es importante reconocer los trade-offs de las iniciativas de conservación como REDD y examinarlos de manera abierta e Integradora que incluya una variedad de herramientas, métodos y puntos de vista. Literature Cited Adams, W., D. Brockington, J. Dyson, and B. Vira. 2003. Managing tragedies: understanding conflict over common pool resources. Science 302: 1915–1916. Agrawal, A., A. Chhatre, and R. Hardin. 2008. Changing governance of the world's forests. Science 320: 1460–1462. Baumert, K., T. Herzog, and J. Pershing. 2005. Navigating the numbers: greenhouse gas data and international climate policy. The World Resources Institute, Washington , D.C. Boucher, D. 2008. Out of the woods: a realistic role for tropical forests in curbing global warming. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge , Massachussetts . Brechin, S., P. Wilshusen, C. Fortwangler, and P. West. 2003. Contested nature: promoting international biodiversity with social justice in the twenty-first century. State University Press of New York, Albany . Brosius, J. P., and D. Russell. 2003. Conservation from above: an anthropological perspective on transboundary protected areas and ecoregional planning. Pages 39–66 in U. M. Goodale, M. J. Stern, C. Margoluis, A. G. Lanfer, and M. Fladeland, editors. Transboundary protected areas: the viability of regional conservation strategies. Food Products Press, Binghampton , New York . Brown, K. 2004. Trade-off analysis for integrated conservation and development. Pages 232–255 in T. McShane and M. Wells, editors. Getting biodiversity projects to work: towards more effective conservation and development. Columbia University Press, Chichester , New York . Campbell, B. 2009. Beyond Copenhagen: REDD+, agriculture, adaptation strategies and poverty. Global Environmental Change 19: 397–399. Escobar, A. 1998. Whose knowledge, whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation, and the political ecology of social movements. Journal of Political Ecology 5: 53–82. Ferguson, J. 1994. The anti-politics machine: development, depoliticization, and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge , United Kingdom . Garnett, S. T., J. Sayer, and J. Du Toit. 2007. Improving the effectiveness of interventions to balance conservation and development: a conceptual framework. Ecology and Society 12(1): http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art2/ Habermas, J. 1984. The theory of communicative action. Volume 1. Reason and the rationalization of society. Translated by T. McCarthy. Beacon Press, Boston . Houghton, R. 2003. Why are estimates of the terrestrial carbon balance so different?Global Change Biology 9: 500–509. Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN). 2010. Reaping profits from evictions, land grabs, deforestation, and destruction of biodiversity. IEN, Bemidji, Minnesota. Available from http://www.ienearth.org/REDD/index.html (accessed June 2010). Leach, M. and R. Mearns. 1996. The lie of the land: challenging received wisdom on the African environment. James Currey and Heinemann, Oxford , United Kingdom . Levin, K., C. McDermott, and B. Cashore. 2008. The climate regime as global forest governance: can reduced emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) initiatives pass a 'dual effectiveness' test?International Forestry Review 10: 538–549. Li, T. 2007. Practices of assemblage and community forest management. Economy and Society 36: 263–293. McShane, T., et al. 2010. Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biological Conservation: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.038 McShane, T., and M. Wells 2004. Getting biodiversity projects to work: towards more effective conservation and development. Columbia University Press, Chichester , New York . Metz, B., O. Davidson, P. Bosch, R. Dave, and L. A. Mayer. 2007. Climate change 2007 synthesis report: summary for policymakers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge , United Kingdom . Miller, T., T. Baird, C. Littlefield, G. Kofinas, F. S. Chapin III, and C. Redman. 2008. Epistemological pluralism: reorganizing interdisciplinary research. Ecology and Society 13(2): http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art46/ Nabuurs, G. J., et al. 2007. Forestry. Pages 541–584 in B. Metz, O. Davidson, P. Bosch, R. Dave, and L. A. Mayer, editors. Climate change 2007: mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge , United Kingdom . Nelson, E., et al. 2009. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7: 4–11. Norton, B. G. 2005. Sustainability: a philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. University of Chicago Press, Chicago . Norton, B. G., and D. Noonan. 2007. Ecology and valuation: big changes needed. Ecological Economics 63: 664–675. O'Neil, J., A. Holland, and A. Light. 2007. Environmental values. Routledge, New York . Ostrom, E. 2007. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 15181–15187. Redford, K., and W. Adams. 2009. Payment for ecosystem services and the challenge of saving nature. Conservation Biology 23: 785–787. Roe, E. 1991. 'Development narratives' or making the best of development blueprints. World Development 19: 287–300. Roe, E. 1994. Narrative policy analysis: theory and practice. Duke University Press, Durham , North Carolina . Schneider, A., and H. Ingram. 2007. Ways of knowing: implications for public policy. (Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association.) Consortium for Science and Policy Outcomes, Arizona State University, Phoenix. Available from http://www.cspo.org/documents/ways_of_knowing.pdf (accessed June 2010). Songorwa, A. N. 1999. Community-based wildlife management (CWM) in Tanzania: are the communities interested? World Development 27: 2061–2079. Stoorvogel, J. J., J. M. Antle, C. C. Crisman, and W. Bowen. 2004. The trade-off analysis model: integrated bio-physical and economic modeling of agricultural production systems. Agricultural Systems 80: 43–66. (Also available from http://www.stoorvogel.info/tradeoffs/download/2004%20Stoorvogel%20et%20al%20agsys.pdf.) Sunderland, T. C. H., C. Ehringhaus, and B. M. Campbell. 2008. Conservation and development in tropical forest landscapes: a time to face the trade-offs?Environmental Conservation 34: 276–279. Thies, C., and R. Czebiniak. 2008. Forests for climate: developing a hybrid approach for REDD. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam . UN-REDD Programme. 2009. Multiple benefits: issues and options for REDD. United Nations, New York . Available from http://tinyurl.com/multiple-benefits-report (accessed March 2010). Wilson, J. 2002. Scientific uncertainty, complex systems, and the design of common-pool institutions. Pages 327–360 in E. Ostrom, editor. The drama of the commons. National Academy Press, Washington , D.C. Wunder, S. 2008. Payments for environmental services and the poor: concepts and preliminary evidence. Environment and Development Economics 13(3): 279–297. Citing Literature Volume25, Issue2April 2011Pages 259-264 ReferencesRelatedInformation