Why Politics and Context Matter in Conservation Policy
| Author | Mathew J. Hardy,Richard Faulkner,Florence L. P. Damiens,Laura Mumaw,Georgia E. Garrard,Anna Backstrom,Brian Coffey,Sarah A. Bekessy,Lauren Rickards,Ascelin Gordon,Luis Mata,Alexander M. Kusmanoff,Matthew J. Selinske,Nooshin Torabi |
| Published date | 01 May 2017 |
| Date | 01 May 2017 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12415 |
Why Politics and Context Matter in
Conservation Policy
Florence L. P. Damiens, Laura Mumaw, Anna Backstrom, Sarah A. Bekessy,
Brian Coffey, Richard Faulkner, Georgia E. Garrard, Mathew J. Hardy,
Alexander M. Kusmanoff, Luis Mata, Lauren Rickards, Matthew J. Selinske,
Nooshin Torabi and Ascelin Gordon
RMIT University, Australia
Abstract
Kareiva and Fuller (2016) consider the future prospects for biodiversity conservation in the face of the profound disruptions of
the Anthropocene. They argue that more flexible and entrepreneurial approaches to conservation are needed. While some of
the approaches they promote may work in particular situations, we believe their proposal risks unintended and detrimental
social and ecological consequences by presenting them as global solutions to complex political, economic, social and ethical
problems that are context-dependent. Here we argue that the authors inadequately considers the following core issues of bio-
diversity conservation, namely: (1) the structural causes of biodiversity depletion and the responsibilities of key actors; (2) the
questions around what should be conserved, the processes by which biodiversity is valued, and who has the legitimate
authority to value it; (3) the fact that new tools, technologies and innovative approaches are unsuitable as guiding principles
to solve complex, context-dependent social-ecological problems; (4) the challenges of choosing relevant interventions, given
experts’limited ability to ‘manage for change and evolution’; and (5) the risks associated with promoting a utilitarian approach
and a neoliberal governance model for conservation at the global scale.
Kareiva and Fuller (2016) consider the future prospects for
biodiversity conservation in the face of the profound dis-
ruptions of the Anthropocene. They argue that more flexi-
ble and entrepreneurial approaches to conservation are
needed. These include focusing on change rather than his-
torical reference points, an ‘evolutionary paradigm’for
resource management and conservation policy, and
encouraging new technologies and dramatic interventions.
We commend their effort to generate debate in this area
and articulate their view of a more effective approach con-
servation. We agree that a greater emphasis on flexibility
and learning could be useful to respond to unpredictable
changes in the Anthropocene. Likewise, we agree that in
some cases, focusing on distributed bottom-up decision-
making approaches may be more effective than top-down
decision-making. However, while these approaches may
work in particular situations, we believe their proposal risks
unintended and detrimental social and ecological conse-
quences by presenting them as global solutions to com-
plex political, economic, social and ethical problems that
are context-dependent.
Here, we argue that Kareiva and Fuller inadequately con-
siders the following core issues of biodiversity conservation
in the Anthropocene, namely: (1) the structural causes of
biodiversity depletion and the responsibilities of key actors;
(2) the questions around what should be conserved, the
processes by which biodiversity is valued, and who has the
legitimate authority to value it; (3) the fact that new tools,
technologies and innovative approaches are unsuitable as
guiding principles to solve complex, context-dependent
social-ecological problems; (4) the challenges of choosing
relevant interventions, given experts’limited ability to ‘man-
age for change and evolution’in the face of unpredictable
ecological changes; and (5) the risks associated with pro-
moting a utilitarian approach and a neoliberal governance
model for conservation at the global scale. Below we
expand on each of these key issues.
A response to: ‘Beyond Resilience:
How to Better Prepare for the Profound Disruption of the Anthropocene’,
Peter Kareiva and Emma Fuller*
*Kareiva, P. and Fuller, E. (2016) ‘Beyond Resilience: How to Better
Prepare for the Profound Disruption of the Anthropocene’, Global
Policy, 7 (S1), pp. 107–118. DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.12330.
Global Policy (2017) 8:2 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12415 ©2017 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Global Policy Volume 8 . Issue 2 . May 2017 253
Response to Article
To continue reading
Request your trial