Whose voices count in biodiversity conservation? Ecological democracy in biodiversity offsetting,REDD+, and rewilding

ABSTRACT

Ecological democracy seeks environmentally sustainable ends through broad, active democratic participation. What happens when laws fostering participation in environmental decision-making and biodiversity preservation lead to differing results? What is best for biodiversity may not be what for local citizens believe is best. I examine conflicts and congruencies in the context of Biodiversity Offsetting, REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation), and the Rewilding movement. I ask questions that are legal (Who has what legal rights to speak for or against programs that enhance biodiversity?), epistemological (Whose expertise and knowledge matters when scientists and non-scientists don't agree?), axiological (Are some values objectively better, and why?), and normative (Whose opinions about biodiversity should count?). Many people have the right to participate in an ecological democracy: But when protecting biodiversity, who does and should have the right to be heard? I problematize the role that ‘local’ actors play in decision-making and describe the variegated role that experts – particularly biologists – play in ecological democracy when biodiversity preservation matters. To determine whose values and voices should be prioritized, I describe ‘deep equity,’ an axiological and normative groundwork for determining when biodiversity-promoting policies may be preferable even if affected citizens don't agree.     

Discounted knowledges: farmers» and residents» understandings of nature conservation goals and policies

Local Biodiversity Action Plans are the preferred policy mechanism for setting and delivering local biodiversity targets in the UK. This paper reviews the kind of knowledge conservation scientists envisage being used to identify and set local targets, and explores the means of incorporating local knowledge into this process. We use a case study of a Wildlife Enhancement Scheme (WES) on the Pevensey Levels, East Sussex, to reveal the understandings that local farmers and residents have of the nature conservation goals and practices associated with the scheme. Drawing on the findings of in-depth discussion groups, we show how farmers challenge both the monopoly of knowledge conservationists profess about nature, and the enlistment of farmers on the scheme as «technicians», motivated solely by financial rewards, rather than as knowledgeable experts who also have emotional attachments and ethical values for nature. Local people use their knowledge of both local farmers, and the industry in general, to challenge the assumption that farmers can be trusted with delivering nature conservation goals. In the absence of a commitment by central government to agree widely-held environmental standards, and a more democratic process of making judgements about what local nature is worth conserving, local residents challenge existing processes designed to conserve nature that are driven by the knowledge and practices of official experts alone. The findings of the study suggest that a widening of the knowledge base on which the goals and practices of nature conservation are founded, and a more deliberative process of making decisions about what nature is important locally, will secure and strengthen public support for local biodiversity action plans.1998 Academic Press     

环境DNA宏条形码监测湖泊真核浮游植物的精准性

环境DNA(eDNA)宏条形码(metabarcoding)技术是一种基于分子的生物多样性高效监测手段,近年来越来越多地被应用于生态环境中生物要素的监测和评估.开展eDNA 宏条形码监测技术的标准化和规范化研究,是将其业务化推广应用的前提.本研究以高原湖泊滇池和抚仙湖的真核浮游藻类为研究对象,探究了基于18 S-V9 ...     

Conserving Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function through Limited Development: an Empirical Evaluation

Abstract:  Suburban, exurban, and rural development in the United States consumes nearly 1 million hectares of land per year and is a leading threat to biodiversity. In response to this threat, conservation development has been advanced as a way to combine land development and land conservation while providing functional protection for natural resources. Yet, although conservation development techniques have been in use for decades, there have been few critical evaluations of their conservation effectiveness. We addressed this deficiency by assessing the conservation outcomes of one type of conservation development project: conservation and limited development projects (CLDPs). Conducted by land trusts, landowners, and developers, CLDPs use revenue from limited development to finance the protection of land and natural resources. We compared a sample of 10 CLDPs from the eastern United States with their respective baseline scenarios (conventional development) and with a sample of conservation subdivisions—a different conservation development technique characterized by higher-density development. To measure conservation success, we created an evaluation method containing eight indicators that quantify project impacts to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems at the site and in the surrounding landscape. The CLDPs protected and managed threatened natural resources including rare species and ecological communities. In terms of conservation benefits, the CLDPs significantly outperformed their respective baseline scenarios and the conservation subdivisions. These results imply that CLDPs can offer a low-impact alternative to conventional development and a low-cost method for protecting land when conventional conservation techniques are too expensive. In addition, our evaluation method demonstrates how planners and developers can incorporate appropriate ecological considerations when designing, reviewing, and evaluating conservation development projects.     

山东省生物多样性试点评价

以县级行政区域为评价单元,利用现有文献资料和补充调查数据,按照《区域生物多样性评价标准》(HJ 623—2011)规定的评价指标和方法,评价了山东省120个县级行政区域的生物多样性状况,分析了生物多样性状况空间分布规律。评价结果表明:山东省县级行政区域生物多样性指数在23.27~40.24之间变化,县级行政区域生物多样性状况分为\"中\"和\"一般\",分别占山东省土地总面积的55.8%和44.2%。鲁中南山地丘陵区和鲁东丘陵区的生物多样性状况好于黄河三角洲、鲁西北和鲁西南平原区。