Governance of Ecosystem Services: A framework for empirical analysis

Abstract

a b s t r a c tBiodiversity conservation policies justified with science and intrinsic value arguments have produced disappointing outcomes, and the need for conservation is now being additionally justified with the concept of ecosystem services. However, little, if any empirical attention is paid to ways in which different types of ecosystem service decisions are made, to what arguments are effective in turning policy into practice and further into conservation outcomes and, in general, to how ecosystem services are governed. To close this gap, this paper identifies the different modes of governance in policy implementation from biodiversity and environmental conservation literature and incorporates them in a conceptual model of ecosystem services commonly utilised at present, the cascade model. The resulting conceptual framework encompasses: (1) hierarchical governance; (2) scientific-technical governance;(3) adaptive collaborative governance; and; (4) governing strategic behaviour. This comprehensive framework provides a structure for empirical analysis of ecosystem services governance, which takes into account the people and organisations making decisions, and, in particular, the different arguments that are used when implementing policies. The framework will facilitate holistic ecosystem service analyses and support policies in generating conservation and sustainability impact.

Governing Forest Ecosystem Services for Sustainable Environmental Governance: A Review

“…A major feature of this sort of governance is the incorporation of science-based arguments into policies and practical governance situations [40]. However, there are problems with smooth knowledge flow, communication, and broad public participation, which affect the overall FES governance [29]. For example, scientifically embedded and technically aided policy and practice are sometimes difficult for policy makers and local communities to understand [41,42].…”

“…Even though multi-stakeholders engagement might bring ownership to the governance process, there is also the danger of individuals and institutions in positions of power narrowly interpreting such international policy frameworks to serve their own purposes in terms of national policy [29]. For example, government agencies, in general, place emphasis on regulating, cultural and aesthetic types of ES, whereas the public and users of the FES at the grass roots level are more interested in provisioning services to meet their daily requirements, especially in rural settings in developing countries.…”

“…Scientific-technical governance is another form of ecosystem service governance that supports both hierarchical policy formulation and the bottom-up approach of policy, by supplying required technical and scientific input [29,39]. For example, it provides cutting-edge knowledge in the field of FES and helps to produce an effective policy framework at national and local levels.…”

“…Now it is widely recognized as a concept for the benefit of both nature and human well-being derived from healthy ecosystems [1,6]. Different modes of governing these services have evolved with the development of the concept of ES: (1) Hierarchical governance, (2) scientific-technical governance, (3) adaptive collaborative governance, and (4) governance of strategic behaviors [29].…”

“…Hierarchical FES governance encompasses the way in which international decisions and policies are prepared, and how these will help frame national-level policy and implementation [29]. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), for example, is a multilateral environmental agreement, with several provisions for biodiversity conservation, which are reflected as governing policy documents for biodiversity and ecosystem management at national and local levels in the member states [30,31].…”