Mainstreaming ecosystem services in state-level conservation planning: progress and future needs

Noe, Ryan; Keeler, Bonnie L.; Kilgore, Michael A.; Taff, Steven J.; Polasky, Stephen

doi:10.5751/es-09581-220404

Cited by 18 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, such thinking has not been fully mainstreamed. 112 It may be particularly challenging in a context such as South Africa, where poverty and inequality 113 mean that there are many competing priorities.…”

Section: Why the Silence Of Section 24?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The silent right : environmental rights in the Constitution Court of South Africa

Krüger

2019

Constitutional Court Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental rights are recognised in s 24 of the Constitution, but the Constitutional Court has not engaged with these in a meaningful manner in the last decade. Fuel Retailers, handed down in 2007, was the last case to engage s 24 fully. Although it used the concept of sustainable development to give content to the right, the case has been criticised for its economic focus and the lack of certainty in its approach. The resulting precedent may have been difficult to follow, creating a barrier for potential environmental cases in more recent years. However, a challenge prior to the interpretation of environmental rights in the court room is that environmental issues do not always make it to court. The three cases analysed in this piece reflect matters in which environmental rights were relevant, but neither argued by the parties nor raised by the Court. This may be attributed to the complexity of environmental matters, or to difficulties related to competing priorities and legal standing. More particularly, the challenges faced by the environment in getting to court are akin to the difficulties faced by children in having their rights vindicated-both must be represented by others. The three cases discussed in this article suggest that the Court has something of an environmental blindspot. This can be likened to the gender blindspots that have existed in past cases, and arguably still exist. Having made the case for an environmental blindspot, this article considers an array of tools that might address the problem. Internationally, independent environmental agencies and specialised environmental courts have been created, but these may not be the best fit for the South African context. Instead, this article suggests that existing legal tools may be used for the realisation of s 24's environmental rights. The Constitutional Court may make use of its broad powers to pick up on environmental issues even where these have not been explicitly identified by the parties. While this may be contrary to established procedure, the Constitutional Court does adopt a flexible approach when it believes that specific rights or provisions in the Constitution are essential to ventilate and to resolve the issues raised in a matter. This flexibility may allow the court to bypass the challenges facing s 24, enabling the development of this important constitutional right. Finally, this article suggests a proactive approach to s 24, formalising an upper guardian for the environment to accelerate the development of the right's content.

show abstract

Section: Why the Silence Of Section 24?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The silent right : environmental rights in the Constitution Court of South Africa

Krüger

2019

Constitutional Court Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studying the influence or lack thereof of particular ideas on policy processes, and factors that affect this influence, forms a large and growing area of literature in political studies (Schmidt 2008, Parsons 2016. Moreover, recent work in this journal (Noe et al 2017, Challenger et al 2018, Nordin et al 2017, Waylen et al 2015 and elsewhere (e.g., Russel 2014, Turnpenny andRussel 2017) has shown that embedding ideas about more ecologically sensitive policy making can be far from easy. The role institutions such as established policy regimes, processes, and norms play in facilitating or blocking the influence of new ideas in policy processes is an old question.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Embedding ecosystem services ideas into policy processes: an institutional analysis

Russel¹,

Turnpenny²

2020

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What helps or limits the use of ecosystem services ideas in practice? In this paper we develop and test a new institutionalistbased analytical scheme to explore how ecosystem services as a "new" policy idea might interact with established policy regimes, processes, and norms. The scheme is based on three different decision-making levels: micro, meso, and macro. To test the plausibility of the scheme, it is applied to the case of the UK where a specific ecosystem services framework (ESF) was prioritized as a new way of doing environmental policy after 2011. Drawing on findings from 32 elite interviews, the paper shows how dynamics at all three levels intersect with differing institutional explanations. It helps explain important factors for embedding, or restricting embedding, of the ESF in policy making. The scheme provides a useful way to link analysis of the "lived experience" of policy actors implementing the ESF with the institutional landscape they occupy, and allows for a nuanced and integrated analysis of the potential barriers faced by ecosystem services ideas generally.

show abstract

“…Despite the growing interest in adopting an ES-based management approach ( Daily et al., 2009 ), their implementation is challenging for several reasons. Land managers should have the capacity to perform ES analyses and the statutory authority over the land to conduct these approaches ( Noe et al., 2017 ). Furthermore, practitioners of ES-based management approaches also have to have the legal mandate to integrate ES in their analyses ( Presnall et al., 2015 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using stakeholders' preference for ecosystems and ecosystem services as an economic basis underlying strategic conservation planning

Vassalos

Motallebi

Baldwin

et al. 2020

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecosystem services (ES), commonly defined as the benefits people get from ecosystems, are key components in improving human well-being. However, as land utilization transitions from forest and agricultural land to urban areas and industrial complexes, the continuous provision of ES is affected. To ensure sustainable development, conservation programs should be implemented that consider both the stakeholders' well-being while also maintaining ecosystem health and integrity. Consequently, to improve the strategic implementation of conservation programs, it is critical to understand stakeholders' preferences.Using an online survey, we elicited South Carolina residents' preference in prioritizing the target ecosystems and ecosystem services in the state. The results identified that the priority ecosystem service is water quality regulation. However, the residents' preference for water quality regulation does not discredit the importance of maintaining the continuous water supply provision. In terms of ecosystem preference, residents indicated that the forest ecosystem is the priority ecosystem to be conserved, particularly for younger residents, respondents with high income, and those in the midland and the upstate. This could be attributed to the forest's effect on the ecosystem services that these respondents receive, particularly towards water-related ecosystem services. Understanding the residents' preference provides information that could improve the state water plans and other potential policy implications to land use-land cover planning and landscape sustainability management.

show abstract

Mainstreaming ecosystem services in state-level conservation planning: progress and future needs

Cited by 18 publications

References 16 publications

The silent right : environmental rights in the Constitution Court of South Africa

The silent right : environmental rights in the Constitution Court of South Africa

Embedding ecosystem services ideas into policy processes: an institutional analysis

Using stakeholders' preference for ecosystems and ecosystem services as an economic basis underlying strategic conservation planning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About