The task of conserving natural systems – biodiversity, ecosystem services, natural resources, natural capital, call it what you will – is fraught with complexities.
First, there is the issue that there are so many unknowns: how many species are out there? What makes natural systems resilient and what are the limits of that resilience?
Second, there is the issue that the value of natural systems is experienced from a plurality of perspectives and with a variety of interests in mind. These perspectives and interests furthermore arise across multiple spatial scales that affect and are affected by the fate of natural systems: from the scale of local livelihoods, to regional watersheds, to national and international economic and energy systems, on to the global atmosphere.
Third, these different perspectives and interests take place in a social milieu characterized by structural inequalities and the ability of some actors to exercise power over others. This power influences not only flows of things like people, trees, oil, and money but also – more subtly but important nonetheless – how problems are defined. How problems are defined shapes who gets included in problem-solving efforts and how, which in turn shapes how problem-solving processes unfold, which in turn shapes ultimate outcomes.
So one entry point to the complex problem of protecting natural systems is getting a handle on the different ways conservation problems can be defined, and how this shapes processes and outcomes. Confronting what Bryan Norton has called the “problem of problem definition.”
In a recent research initiative I participated in called “Advancing Conservation in a Social Context,” the opening move was to define conservation problems in terms of “trade-offs.” The idea was that, given the kinds of complexity cited above, “win-win” solutions are generally based on an incomplete definition of the nature of the problem. Take bio-fuels for example: not long ago bio-fuels were touted as a win-win way to create jobs, build national economies, and produce energy more sustainably. Today, it is clear that – whether or not it has met these goals – investment in bio-fuels has also resulted in rising food prices and the destruction of rainforests. These losses were not included in the original definition of the problem, and thus important trade-offs were ignored.
Defining conservation problems in terms of trade-offs means something more than the need for cost-benefit analysis that weighs different alternatives according to a common metric like money. It’s not that cost-benefit analyses or other rigorous analytical approaches are not helpful – they are. It’s just that the complexities mentioned above – of scientific unknowns, multiple perspectives at multiple scales, and the ever-present role of power and inequality – call for embedding such analyses within research that accounts for the way these complexities play out in specific contexts. Of course, the danger on the other side is that too ample appreciation of complexity can lead to paralysis…
So, the key challenge of defining conservation problems in terms of trade-offs is to use this problem definition to open the way to deeper reflection and committed action. But let us not underestimate the implication of accepting this trade-offs view. If there are indeed trade-offs to be made between the conservation of natural systems and other social goals – important goals like jobs and food and energy security – then hard choices will have to be made.
These papers go a bit deeper into some of these issues:
Acknowledging Conservation Trade-offs and Embracing Complexity
Hard Choices: Making Trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being
I am struggling with the implication of the last sentence – “hard choices will have to be made.” I am sort of ambivalent about the message here. My concern is that it puts things that seem non-negotiable (to me, at least), like protection of the basic systems on which life depends, in a position where they can be trumped by other things (that undoubtedly seem non-negotiable to someone else from another perspective). Any reflections / wisdom on this issue would be quite welcome.
It seems to me there has to be some weighting, perhaps of some “universal” values. Aren’t there some principles that everyone could agree on, like “clean air is important.” If we start with some basic shared principles, then maybe we can figure out ways to make hard choices and trade-offs within the boundaries of those basic principles.
That’s a very interesting piece. I’d like to see the ideas applied to a specific example to help me understand how thinking about trade-offs can influence decision making. I like that you’re thinking in terms of multiple scales & structural inequalities. It might be worth thinking about how coalitions form in support of a particular trade-off scenario. When a coalition consists of corporate management and government agents, for example, it’s a combination that’s difficult, but not impossible, to fight against successfully.
this is hard to understand