Equitable policy development for biodiversity conservation
How might conservation objectives conflict with local needs and wellbeing?
Generally speaking, when perceptions of social outcome and governance are associated to fairness and equity, the effectiveness of the PA conservation and management increases.
Whereas global conservation objectives in the past might have been strictly related to ecological success of restoration, when such measures are applied in practice at the local level they might contrast with the needs and traditions of indigenous communities and thus lead to a more costly and challenging management experience. By integrating all relevant stakeholders in the decision-making process as well as developing a continually adaptable and dynamic methodology of conservation and management, PA would be able to achieve more sustained and long-term results.
What are the different dimensions of social justice to consider in assessing the equity of conservation governance?
Dawson et al. in 2018 define equity in the context of conservation as being three-dimensional: distribution (who realizes the benefits or incurs costs), procedure (how decisions are made and by whom) and recognition (the status afforded to different social and cultural values or identities and to the social groups who hold them). After defining a concrete structure as to what is considered in the realm of equitable conservation, it is important to be able to assess the extent of conservation governance on social impacts for local communities.
This can be achieved through different ways: distribution of material costs and benefits, such as loss of income from access restrictions or gains from revenue sharing or inclusiveness of participation measured through attendance at meeting etc. An important focus point in developing such indicators is to continually research the ongoing dynamics linking local stakeholders with the social context. Doing such would allow to uncover diversity and dissonances which would consequently lead to more adaptive and collaborative solutions rather than strict governance regimes. This system is enabled by informed perspectives from different stakeholders.
What are the potential interactions and trade-offs between effective and equitable conservation governance?
The way equity is defined, assessed, and operationalized may influence whether it can be aligned with efforts to enhance conservation effectiveness (Forsyth 2015).
Oversimplification and reliance on standardized indicators may forego opportunities to identify solutions and minimize trade-offs between equity and effectiveness in ways meaningful to those affected. A richer, contextualized understanding of equity concerns gained through exploration of local perceptions can contribute to solutions that align equity with conservation effectiveness.
A great example is the case study of Laos, where using the three-dimensional framework, researchers have been able to identify gaps and opportunities by moving from a more traditional setup of the PA to a more equitable and inclusive. Although part of the natural reserve had to be given up for traditional land use of cultivation, less strict boundaries and dynamic decision making for the protected area allowed a more sustainable use of the natural resources and reduced illegal and non regulated practices. At the same time, such methodology allowed an exponential increase in household riches as well as a higher acknowledgement and attendance of local communities in PA management and recognition of the latter as a source of benefit rather than constrictions.
How can we make progress towards more equitable forms of conservation?
Based on the concept that just conversation springs from an underlying commitment to social justice, adopting a principle of non-anthropocentrism as well as one of safeguard towards injustice would lead to a fair and just approach to conservation action.
Non-anthropocentrism principle signifies that "no human should infringe on the well-being of others any more than is necessary for a healthy, meaningful life". Therefore, conservation policy and action should be based on guiding each other's interest up to the point where it would not result into injustice and thus safeguard fairness for all involved parties.
A clear example of social justice in the discourse for conservation is represented by protected large predators, such as lions or bears, eating the pastures of local farmers. The loss as well as social involvement of the local community in such scenarios must be considered as an element of human dimension during the analysis for fair outcomes.
To achieve an equitable form of conservation, it is required that key terms, such as sustainability, conservation, human interests and social justice, be defined around the application of three principles: equality, need and desert.
Nonetheless, the concepts of social justice and conservation are "sufficiently independent set of values" so that they might conflict with one another. Hence, it results vital consider such dichotomy through principles that would represent a framework for socially-just conservation and could be implemented in CCR processes, which are as well based on impartial set of values.
It is also important to remember that ultimately such discords in conservation arise from humans with different interests, views and values.
They represent therefore by nature a dynamic relationship between one another.
References:
Commenti
Posta un commento