دانلود رایگان ترجمه مقاله ایجاد تعادل بین حفظ تنوع زیستی و رفاه انسان (نشریه الزویر 2011)

انتخاب های سخت: ایجاد تعادل بین حفظ تنوع زیستی و رفاه انسان

Hard choices: Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being

Abstract

Win–win solutions that both conserve biodiversity and promote human well-being are difficult to realize. Trade-offs and the hard choices they entail are the norm. Since 2008, the Advancing Conservation in a Social Context (ACSC) research initiative has been investigating the complex trade-offs that exist between human well-being and biodiversity conservation goals, and between conservation and other economic, political and social agendas across multiple scales. Resolving trade-offs is difficult because social problems – of which conservation is one – can be perceived and understood in a variety of disparate ways, influenced (in part at least) by how people are raised and educated, their life experiences, and the options they have faced. Pre-existing assumptions about the “right” approach to conservation often obscure important differences in both power and understanding, and can limit the success of policy and programmatic interventions. The new conservation debate challenges conservationists to be explicit about losses, costs, and hard choices so they can be openly discussed and honestly negotiated. Not to do so can lead to unrealized expectations, and ultimately to unresolved conflict. This paper explores the background and limitations of win–win approaches to conservation and human well-being, discusses the prospect of approaching conservation challenges in terms of trade-offs and hard choices, and presents a set of guiding principles that can serve to orient strategic analysis and communication regarding trade-offs.

1 Introduction

In a world of persistent poverty, accelerating resource extraction, and climate change, the challenges to conserving the planet’s biodiversity seem increasingly insurmountable. Species and habitats continue to disappear and the ecosystem services vital to the health of animal, plant, and human communities alike are increasingly disturbed. While the loss of global biodiversity is well documented, there is considerable debate within the conservation field about how to respond most effectively (Wells and McShane, 2004; Agrawal and Redford, 2006; Brockington et al., 2006; Wilkie et al. 2006; Roe 2008).

Given the geographic juxtaposition of human poverty and biological wealth (Sanderson et al., 2002; Sanderson, 2005; Redford and Fearn, 2007), one obvious approach is to design management responses that enhance the well-being of local people while simultaneously halting the destruction of ecosystems. Over the past several decades a variety of such ‘‘win–win” approaches have sought to conserve biodiversity while also furthering local social and economic development. The logic and rhetoric of win– win underlies a number of popular conservation approaches and programs, including debt-for-nature swaps, extractive reserves, community-based conservation, and integrated conservation and development projects.

Unfortunately, the record of such approaches is decidedly mixed. A gathering body of evidence seems to indicate that, across a variety of places and contexts, trade-offs can and do occur between different conservation objectives (such as biodiversity and ecosystem services), and between human livelihoods and conservation (Faith and Walker, 2002; Adams et al., 2004; Brown, 2004; McShane and Wells, 2004; Garnett et al. 2007; Cheung and Sumaila, 2008; Sunderland et al., 2008; Chhatre and Agrawal, 2009; Dahlberg and Burlando, 2009; Sandker et al., 2009; but see also Nelson et al., 2009). Yet it remains rare that the full range of possible trade-offs are acknowledged in communications with funders, policy-makers, and the public, or explicitly discussed as conservation interventions are sought. On the contrary, the pressure to act, and the undesirability – at least from a politicians’ or donors’ point of view – of acknowledging possible downsides and losses can lead conservationists to feel the need to offer optimistic win–win scenarios about the feasibility of addressing multiple agendas. Failing to be open and explicit about trade-offs can thus occur even when conservation practitioners are themselves quite aware of some of the potential downsides of a given scenario or proposal.

As initiatives propelled by win–win optimism are scaled-up and replicated, and as the realities of trade-offs are experienced either by actors expecting to ‘‘win” or by those not considered in the equation at all, the stage seems set for a vicious cycle of optimism and disenchantment (Wells and McShane, 2004). To continue to feed this cycle benefits neither nature nor people. A new challenge, and a new set of debates, therefore, is emerging for conservationists: to find ways to identify and explicitly acknowledge the trade-offs and hard choices that are involved in advancing conservation in specific places and through specific approaches.

So how should analysis and communication regarding tradeoffs within conservation, and between conservation and other social goals proceed? In particular, how can such analysis and communication operate in a way that provides an opening for grappling with the full range of values and dynamics that shape what may be lost and what gained when conservation decisions are made and implemented? After discussing in more detail the background and problems with the win–win approach to conservation, we discuss the value of focusing on trade-offs and hard choices in the evaluation of plans and proposals for advancing conservation. We then pose a specific set of guiding principles, developed and refined over the course of 2 years of research, workshops, and discussions, that can serve to orient discussions and analysis regarding trade-offs.