Having just read Robinson’s paper Ethical pluralism, pragmatism, and sustainability in conservation practice I’m now thinking about some issues raised in the paper:
- intrinsic value and holistic approaches, including the argument for existence value which can still be anthropocentric, IUCN Red Listing is given as an example
- Traditional values and indigenous people
- Pro-poor conservation – emphasizing the utilitarian value and sustainable livelihoods
- Economism – relating to the value of BD to our well-being
- protected areas
- giving authority to the local level (Social Ecology model – follow up by reading Sarkar and Montoya, same issue)
- mainstreaming conservation – aiming for greatest economic and social returns (requires some level of valuation), can include sustainable use
Some take-home messages:
- The relationship between the three ideologies and the three approaches listed is not rigid.
- The specific context of a conservation project determines the approach to choose, and a plurality of values and approaches can (and should) be embraced.
- Which conservation approaches have seen the biggest successes?
- Which approaches appear to have the longest-lasting impacts?
- What impact does an organization’s statements on values have on perceptions of it? (e.g. IUCN quoted re: sustainable use, values of BD, etc)
Key ideas: integrated conservation and development (ICD), ethics, values, approaches, what works, social/ecological trade-offs,
Follow up reading:
- Berkes, 2007 – re: role of partnership of local authorities and international NGOs
- McShane et al 2010 – re: values of stakeholders and trade-offs
- Wells and Brandon, 1992, Robinson and Redford, 2004 – re: ICD
- Holling 1978 – re: adaptive management
- Robinson, JG 1993 – The limits to caring: sustainable living and the loss of bidoviersity