Thanks Matthew for the response, and apologies in advance for a another lengthy post.
Agree. The focus on short-term gains with an eye on long term sustainability I think nicely links with the recognition that whoever is planning interventions needs to be aware that their actions will have feedback loops to both people as well as the ecosystem, some positive, and some (including unforseen) negative. This also links I feel to the role of resilience you have already noted, in terms of the ecosystem its self, but also in terms of the kinds of institutions set up to manage a context of continual change. What was most empowring in the more 'successful' projects we looked at was providing especially local custodians (in addition to an adequate mandate and rights to act) the appropriate skill sets to understand how their ecosystem functions, how to monior it and take adaptive management action. Although our study captured only a snapshot in time, it did illustrate that institutions need the human capacities to evolve in line with changing ecosystem-human scenarios to ensure its services remain sustainable.
There seem to be two strands eveolving in this discussion: one focussing more on influencing policy and the other looking at on ground aspects of how sustainable ES can be generated in practice. Having now read the blog Terry points us to, and hoping I've not misunderstood the messages, the conclusions seem to be drawn based on how "registered voters" (a.k.a. the public) percieve ES and its attendant language. That's fine, and the public is important. But what about other (sub) groups like policy makers, planners, investors who have very specific identities, functions and interests? Would not each require somewhat different language based on their specific interests? So not completely convinced that ES language is inapropriate especially since some of these groups may be familair with its ideas after considerable effort spent by people to get them to do so. Many of these people moreover DO think in terms of values and tradeoffs within their own agendas and functions. So perhaps we need to be multi-lingual about ecosystems.
What seems REALY important is the message that we need more concrete example of how the case for ES can be realised on the ground, to demonstrate it is doable at least in some cases. But having done this, it still needs to be sold to very specific individuals to move from individual/localised examples to broad policy. So we return to the question of what language our intended audience will appreciate.
Thanks Matthew for the response, and apologies in advance for a another lengthy post.
Agree. The focus on short-term gains with an eye on long term sustainability I think nicely links with the recognition that whoever is planning interventions needs to be aware that their actions will have feedback loops to both people as well as the ecosystem, some positive, and some (including unforseen) negative. This also links I feel to the role of resilience you have already noted, in terms of the ecosystem its self, but also in terms of the kinds of institutions set up to manage a context of continual change. What was most empowring in the more 'successful' projects we looked at was providing especially local custodians (in addition to an adequate mandate and rights to act) the appropriate skill sets to understand how their ecosystem functions, how to monior it and take adaptive management action. Although our study captured only a snapshot in time, it did illustrate that institutions need the human capacities to evolve in line with changing ecosystem-human scenarios to ensure its services remain sustainable.
There seem to be two strands eveolving in this discussion: one focussing more on influencing policy and the other looking at on ground aspects of how sustainable ES can be generated in practice. Having now read the blog Terry points us to, and hoping I've not misunderstood the messages, the conclusions seem to be drawn based on how "registered voters" (a.k.a. the public) percieve ES and its attendant language. That's fine, and the public is important. But what about other (sub) groups like policy makers, planners, investors who have very specific identities, functions and interests? Would not each require somewhat different language based on their specific interests? So not completely convinced that ES language is inapropriate especially since some of these groups may be familair with its ideas after considerable effort spent by people to get them to do so. Many of these people moreover DO think in terms of values and tradeoffs within their own agendas and functions. So perhaps we need to be multi-lingual about ecosystems.
What seems REALY important is the message that we need more concrete example of how the case for ES can be realised on the ground, to demonstrate it is doable at least in some cases. But having done this, it still needs to be sold to very specific individuals to move from individual/localised examples to broad policy. So we return to the question of what language our intended audience will appreciate.