Aim and objectives Expected results Work packages WP 1 Building a framework of arguments for the value of biodiversity WP 2 Case studies on the effectiveness of arguments WP 3 The interaction between governance scales WP 4 Relationship between biodiversity, ecosystem services and values WP 5 Synthesis: Arguments for improved biodiversity policy-making and governance WP 6 Dissemination, communication and science-policy dialogue WP 7 Management of the consortium Methodology Partners Project timetable Project organisation

WP 5 Synthesis: Arguments for improved biodiversity policy-making and governance

Coordinators: John Haslett (PLUS) and Rob Tinch (EFTEC)

 

Objectives

The overall aim of WP 5 is to:

• evaluate the effectiveness and potential of alternative ways of arguing the case for swift and effective action using outputs from WPs 1 to 4;
• produce an integrated framework for evaluating and selecting alternative methods and arguments for promoting and communicating the protection of biodiversity in different contexts and at different scales;
• develop a user-friendly web tool to unlock this information and framework for stakeholder use.

Description of work

Task 5.1: Synthesis of assessments

The case studies in WP2 will be evaluated using the provisional framework developed in WP1. In this task, we will draw on the lessons from these assessments, along with theoretical arguments and the results of the WP1 review and road testing of the provisional framework in order to draw general conclusions about the performance of different arguments and combinations of arguments against the evaluation criteria for different decision contexts and scales.

 

Task 5.2: Synergistic and antagonistic interactions across mechanisms

In many cases, there may be several simultaneous arguments or mechanisms seeking to influence behaviour and conservation outcomes. Depending on the contexts, some of these will complement each other, indeed some may be essential pre-requisites for others, while others may be contradictory or mutually exclusive. For example, in some contexts ecosystem service arguments could sit alongside ethical/non-use arguments, but mechanisms relying on charging for resource use might be in direct conflict with mechanisms aiming at voluntary conservation. Frameworks may sometimes appear dichotomous (e.g. profit vs. moral, service protection vs. biodiversity protection, conservation vs. sustainable development), but under certain conditions or scales may become compatible. For example, at a local scale protection and development may be strictly opposite, whereas at a national scale sustainable development will require a mosaic of different levels of land use ranging from strict conservation through to high intensity development. We will examine these dichotomies and assess the contexts and scales at which there is conflict, and how it can be reduced. This task forms a further level of synthesis where we will draw on and augment the results of Task 5.1 to explore these features.

 

Task 5.3: Dynamic aspects of arguments

It is important to consider how arguments, mechanisms and resulting decisions can influence not only current behaviour, but also future values, beliefs and evidence. The role of decisions in influencing future evidence is widely recognised through the ‘adaptive management’ framework. Other forms of learning, and evolution of attitudes and values, will also influence future decision landscapes. For example, one argument made against ecosystem services and market-based paradigms is that they may encourage a utilitarian conception of the natural world that erodes a conservation ethic and leads to higher pressures, or less concern for wild nature, in the future.