Recent debate within the conservation community about how to define our mission and delineate our objectives has highlighted frictions between conventional (biodiversity centered) conservation and "new" (socio-economically driven) conservation. It has also prompted calls for "inclusive conservation," aimed at accommodating both conventional and new perspectives under one big tent, and quelling continued debate. In focusing on the compatibility between two well established perspectives, however, and constructing conservation as a universal agenda rooted in a common environmental ethic, inclusive conservation reinforces currently dominant thinking in the field. We argue here that, despite its name, inclusive conservation further suppresses marginal views within the conservation community by denying the very existence of margins. Drawing on the work of Nancy Fraser and Chantal Mouffe, we underscore the importance of conflict and agonistic pluralism in maintaining space for historically underrepresented points of view. In doing so, we stake out a position in the conservation debate for what we call social instrumentalism, which is an already marginalized perspective that is further suppressed by calls for inclusivity. Finally, we offer a positive alternative vision for the future of conservation, or more aptly, for a future characterized by many different conservations.

While many of the concerns over the economic valuation of nature have gained broad exposure, justice concerns remain largely peripheral. Within both scholarly debate and actual valuation exercises, the emphasis is most often on reconciling cultural and monetary valuation.Increasingly, as the valuation of nature gains momentum, proponents of the trend seek to relieve apprehensions by suggesting that economic valuation is entirely compatible with intrinsic and aesthetic values. This attempt to mollify skeptics, however, misses the mark; regardless of whether or not nature may be valued simultaneously in cultural and economic terms, the social and environmental justice implications of monetary valuation remain. The purpose of this commentary is to clarify that much of the resistance to the economic valuation of nature is motivated by these justice concerns and that reassurances about the cultural value of nature do little to quell them.Several of the justice reasons to remain cautious of the economic valuation of nature are also elaborated.

Abstract:Recent work has called into question the status of Costa Rica's Payments for Environmental Services program (PES) as an iconic example of market-based conservation. The actual practice of this program has proven to have only loose correspondence with its idealized neoliberal vision. Thus far, however, several important aspects of the program have remained under-analyzed. This paper identifies three key ways in which the gap between "vision" and "execution" is being narrowed: through changes to the way the program is financed, through promotion of competitive contracting, and through the removal of collective participation. The paper also explains the detrimental social and ecological implications of these actions. Analysis is situated in a theoretical framework that understands neoliberalization as an incomplete and adapting process, rather than a monolithic ideology that is uniform across history and geography. The empirical evidence demonstrates why this interpretation is essential for assessing the practical effect of neoliberal policies.Keywords: neoliberalization; PES; Costa Rica; conservation; governance; ecosystem services 1 In a recent paper, Fletcher and Breitling (2012) demonstrate the many ways in which Costa Rica's Pagos por Servicios Ambientales program (PSA) 1 fails to realize its vision for instating a market-based conservation mechanism. They rightly identify many aspects of the program that challenge its status as a "neoliberal conservation" project; it is largely financed through taxation, it was accompanied by an expropriation of land-use rights, markets for the sale of ecosystem services are virtually non-existent, and a state-centered structure utilizes a redistributive model to target priority areas identified through centralized planning. The implication is that the reputed success of Costa Rica's PSA in expanding forest conservation is largely the result of interventionist policies, not (as has been widely accepted) market-oriented ones. Their purpose is to suggest, among other things, that the future of initiatives being built upon such programs (eg. REDD+) may be problematic if they intend to rely on markets to sustain their activities.While I am sympathetic to their effort to undermine the assumption that markets can be used to solve conservation problems -or as Buscher (2012, 30) puts it "that capitalist markets are the answer to their own ecological contradictions" -I will argue below that they have overlooked several key ways in which Costa Rica's PSA is being neoliberalized. My objective is to strengthen their position by demonstrating that, in the cases where neoliberalization has taken place, there have been detrimental social and ecological consequences. Whereas Fletcher and Breitling (2012) challenge the alleged success of market-based conservation by emphasizing the ways in which Costa Rica's PSA has failed to incorporate neoliberal practices, my approach to the same is to reveal the adverse effects of the "actually existing" neoliberalisms that have in fact been rea...

Abstract:This paper is a reply to Esteve Corbera's critique of my earlier commentary on the economic valuation of nature. It seeks to clarify my motivations and objectives in writing the original piece. It highlights important distinctions between our positions and explains why acceptance of financialized approaches to conservation (in any of its guises) works to deepen the embedded nature of neoliberal ideology.

Market-oriented forms of conservation are believed to deliver enhanced efficiency in ecosystem management. This greater efficiency is derived from the introduction of competitive mechanisms in resource governance. Market competition, however, produces new social relations that can alter the division of benefits between various actors within the economy and present opportunities for accumulation. The consequent gains in efficiency are not necessarily equitably distributed. Furthermore, the introduction of competition can erode cooperative arrangements designed to assist the poor and politically marginal. Drawing on theories of the 'coercive laws of competition', I seek in this article to understand how competitive structures compel actors to behave in ways that put profit before social or environmental responsibility and encourage self-interested behavior. I explore these ideas in the context of Costa Rican forest conservation, showing that competitive contracting in private forest management has resulted in an uneven distribution of benefits and a comparative advantage for larger landowners. In addition, I also re-think the 'coercive laws' for a neoliberal era. Keywords: competition, neoliberalism, conservation, markets, efficiency, PES RésuméLes types de conservation qui sont orientées vers le marché sont largement considérées pour offrir une efficacité accrue pour la gestion des écosystèmes. Cette plus grande efficacité provient de la mise en place de mécanismes compétitives en matière de gouvernance des ressources naturelles. La compétitivité du marché, cependant, produit de nouvelles relations sociales qui peuvent modifier la répartition des bénéfices entre les différents acteurs de l'économie et des possibilités actuelles d'accumulation. Les gains qui en découlent en matière d'efficacité ne sont pas nécessairement équitablement répartis. En outre, l'introduction de la compétitivité peut éroder les accords de coopération visant à aider les pauvres et politiquement marginal. En utilisant les théories des «lois coercitives de la concurrence», je cherche à comprendre comment la concurrence oblige les acteurs à adopter des comportements qui mettent le profit avant la responsabilité sociale ou environnementale, et encourager un comportement égoïste. J'explore ces idées dans le contexte de la conservation des forêts du Costa Rica. Ici, les contrats dans la gestion des forêts privées a conduit à une répartition inégale des avantages, et un avantage comparatif pour les grands propriétaires fonciers. Je discute également le rôle des «lois coercitives» dans une ère néolibérale. Mots-clés: la concurrence, le néolibéralisme, la conservation, les marchés, l'efficacité, PES ResumenSe piensa que las formas de conservación orientadas al mercado logran mayor eficiencia en la gestión de las ecosistemas. Esta mayor eficiencia se deriva de la introducción de mecanismos de competencia a la gobernanza de los recursos. Sin embargo, la competencia del mercado produce nuevas relaciones sociales que pueden cambiar la manera e...