Understanding stakeholder-ecosystem (dis-)service associations and the need for policy intervention to avoid environmental conflicts

Humans attribute different Ecosystem Service Potentials (ESP) to the same ecosystem, and they value different Ecosystem Services (ESS) ESS differently. They do both not only as individuals, but also as collectives sharing... [ view full abstract ]

Humans attribute different Ecosystem Service Potentials (ESP) to the same ecosystem, and they value different Ecosystem Services (ESS) ESS differently. They do both not only as individuals, but also as collectives sharing similar habits, cultures, value systems and patterns. We have analysed such patterns by (i) conducting a systematic stakeholder analysis in different countries in Europe and South East Asia, (ii) and conducting qualitative interviews with those stakeholders to identify the ESS and Ecosystem Disservices (EDS) they emphasise. The result is a matrix showing the juxtaposition of different ESS indicating synergistic, ambivalent or unclear and obviously contradictory and to a large degree mutually exclusive ESS. It can be used to illustrate that those who define the ESP of any given ecosystem, by this very act, eliminate at least some alternative ESP, which may have been preferred by different groups of agents: trade-offs in terms of loss of other ESP are inherent to any decision which ESP to realise for generating ESS. Any such choice is also a choice on the distribution of cost and benefits. Thus the power to define the ESP structurally and unavoidably includes the power to define potential beneficiaries and those discriminated against, who have to bear disadvantages at least in terms of opportunity cost (lost alternative opportunities). Even more damage can be inflicted on the same or other groups by the EDS which are almost necessarily defined by defining an ESS (e.g. river flood regulation ESS – reducing flooding EDS, but also natural fertilisation ESS; carnivores defines biocontrol ESS – herbivores defined as pest EDS).They are distributed as determined by the ESP definition (biocontrol ESP presupposes agricultural use; it makes no sense for primary forest or wilderness). Of course, such matrices – both ESS vs. ESS and ESS vs. agents – are context dependent: indigenous groups with specific cultures and religions have different ones than urban dwellers, the differences being within and even more so between such groups of agents. Nonetheless the matrices are helpful for inclusive and sustainable land management planning and ESS governance. They highlight which ESS have to be accounted for in evaluating a decision option to guaranty its suitability for sustainable development, which groups have to be addressed for inclusiveness, and which themes have to be addressed when communicating with them. This may help avoiding discrimination and extended disagreements over land use decisions which might otherwise hinder sustainable land management implementation and cause environmental conflicts. Given the powerful role of those defining the ESP, this act must be understood as not scientific but highly political and in need of a legitimised decision. Politics has to accept its responsibilities; neither science nor social interest groups can have this power in a democratic society.

Key words

Ecosystem services, disservices, power, beneficiaries, disadvantaged