Mind the Gap: Landscape level relational values in agri-environmental programs

Unai Pascual

unai.pascual@bc3research.org

Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3) & Basque Foundation for Science (Ikerbasque)

Centre for Development & Environment, University of Bern, Switzerland

Delivering the Blueprint for a Green Economy, 30 Years On. Can economic approaches be relied upon to conserve nature?

University of Cambridge, 19/9/2019

Intro.• The “Natural Capital” framing is having an effect in conservation policy

design • NatCap and ES have derived in policy instruments such as PES

• A move towards more inclusive framings around NatCap implies recognition of multiple values.

• “Relational Values”? Can they align with NatCap/ES?

• Agri-environmental PES design requires recognizing RVs as derivative from farmer identities and multidimensionality of wellbeing

• Q: Do PES conflict with (agrarian) relational values?

“Natural Capital” (ca. 1,250 articles in WoS, 2010-19)

15%

20% 5%

“Ecosystem Services” (ca. 23k art. in WoS, 2010-19)

10%30%

5%

“PES” (650 art. in WoS: 2010-19)

10%35%

25%

PES (650 art. in WoS: 2010-19)

PES: values, motivations, and behaviour

• Literature on PES is in continuous expansion, e.g:• Evaluation of implementation of economic design principles (Wunder et al., 2018 Nat.Sust)• Ways in which social equity matters (Pascual et al. 2015, BioScience)• …

• Need to remind ourselves that PES(-like) agri-env. incentive programs are value articulating institutions• PES articulate particular values via rules, scope, criteria, priorities, etc. (Vatn, 2010)• Economic motivation may be necessary but not sufficient for PES success (Engel 2016, IRERE).

• Growing attention to ES providers’ attitudes, beliefs and motivations, e.g., • Crowding in-out motivations for pro-social behaviour (Rode et al 2015, Ecolecon)• Value conflicts as barriers to participation in PES (Chapman et al 2019, LUP)

Relational Values

• Debate over intrinsic vs. instrumental values continues in conservation.

• We know that besides economic values shared and cultural values matter (e.g., UKNEA) but more nuanced understanding of multiple values needed.

• The concept of relational values has emerged in e.g., IPBES [Chan et al 2016, PNAS; Pascual, et al 2018, COSUST-SI)

• RVs connect to multi-dimensional constituents of wellbeing (identity, security, etc.) [Pascual et al 2017, COSUST]

• So far, little focus of the role of RVs in PES (Chapman et al 2019, LUP).

Relational Values (cont.)

Adapted from Chan, Gould, Pascual (2018)

Economic value of NatCap & ES

Values aboutnature

Values of Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP)

Illustration: RVs in PES (or lack of?)

• The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) in the Northwest US as incentive program to conserve riparian buffers for salmon habitat creation.

• Undersubscribed, despite generous compensation (!)

• Reason: Specific institutional structures of the program conflicts with key agrarian values, e.g.• aesthetics, active land management, parcel-specific

knowledge, and community knowledge about the landscape. (Chapman et al 2019)

RVs: connecting farmers, land, landscape, and community

Farmer

Landscape

Land Community

Farming heritageContinuity of farming Keeping the farm in the familyLand for community

Active land management(“improve the land”“Stewardship” and “care”)Leaving a legacySpiritual connectionResponsibility to landHarmony with nature

Community agency over landscapeApplying knowledge of community

Adapted from Chapman et al (2019)

• The notion of the “good farmer” connects farmers to their land, community and landscape.

• The values around “tidy landscapes” and “active management” of the land conflict with the conservationist ideal of ‘no-touch’.

• The project could support both the farm’s finances and the farmer’s RVs

• PES is being reframed as “payment to produce a different kind of crop” (or ‘buffer crop’) to encourage the active care of the riparian zone.

Closing the gap…

• PES programs should try to reflect, reinforce and sustain RVs (e.g., stewardship and care)

• This can enhance voluntary enrolment and maintain appropriate long term relations at the landscape level.

• PES need to align with existing RVs aboutnature to support rather than slight farmer identities.

• We need pluralistic valuation approaches, e.g., deliberative stated preference methods.

Photo credit: FSC

thank you