Mainstreaming ecosystem services: The hard work of realigning biodiversity conservation

Abstract

For over two decades, proponents of “ecosystem services” approaches have endeavored to transform the field of biodiversity conservation. In this article, I examine the work of the Natural Capital Project to show how the “mainstreaming” of ecosystem services has required not just hard work but specific forms of work performed by specific types of actors with specific sets of capabilities working through characteristic sorts of organizational contexts. I draw on key theorizations from organization studies to interpret the politics of ecosystem services and conceptualize the conditions (fragmented fields), practices (bricolage), actors (institutional entrepreneurs), and power relations (hegemonic) which have together comprised this work and underpinned ongoing efforts to realign the organizational forms and functions of mainstream conservation. I emphasize how tracing these micro-social foundations—the embedded agencies of those using ecosystem services to contextually negotiate real-world conservation interventions—is crucial to understanding the dynamics of broader and increasingly pronounced macro-institutional shifts in conservation.

Fieldwork in conservation organisations–A review of methodological challenges, opportunities and ethics

“…When discussed, approaches for gaining access fell into three categories: (i) links of academic supervisors or previous research; (ii) being a past employee; and (iii) independently approaching the organisation. To secure access, ethnographers offered their skills (Arevalo et al., 2010; Fay, 2016; Massé, 2017; Suarez, 2017; Thaler, 2017), such as report writing, conducting surveys, translation, or teaching. Research is a relational exercise between researcher and researched where maintaining access, proximity, and trust also relied on reciprocity (Maguranyanga, 2009; Milne, 2022; Rhee, 2006).…”

“…Yet ecological collapse continues unabated along with social injustices under conservation's watch (Tallack & Bruno‐van Vijfeijken, 2022), provoking both conservationists and their critics to argue for an urgent need to transform the sector and organisations (Carmenta et al., 2023; Díaz et al., 2019; Milner‐Gulland, 2021; Tallack & Bruno‐van Vijfeijken, 2022). Many concur that this is down to a reluctance to challenge influential political‐economic actors and forces, a tendency to prioritise organisational survival, an underestimation of the assumptions that underpin practice, lack of out‐the‐box‐thinking, the challenge of institutionalising self‐reflection, and inertia in not listening to internal critical voices (Borie et al., 2020; Mathews, 2011; Milne, 2022; Suarez, 2017; Tallack & Bruno‐van Vijfeijken, 2022).…”

“…Recent scholarship has illustrated how conservation organisations are diverse, dynamic, and constituted by wider social institutions and contexts they operate within (Larsen & Brockington, 2018; Tallack & Bruno‐van Vijfeijken, 2022). Other work highlights the porousness of identity boundaries between conservation employees and beneficiaries or ‘locals’ (Haenn, 2016; Runacres, 2021), that conservationists suffer consequences themselves in fighting for rights of marginalised actors (Fay, 2016) or against hegemonic practices from within organisational headquarters (Borie & Hulme, 2015; Robertson, 2010; Suarez, 2017).…”

Recognizing reflexivity among conservation practitioners

“…In contrast, a lack of alignment between values and work activities can be uncomfortable and demotivating. For instance, Suarez (2017) conducted ethnographic fieldwork among conservationists involved in the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services initiative. He observed how many practitioners used the concept of ecosystem services, for example, when engaging with policy makers but felt uncomfortable emphasizing the instrumental value of biodiversity.…”

“…Since its establishment, it has recognized the need to embrace a cross‐cultural understanding of the nonhuman world (Díaz et al., 2015). However, Suarez (2017) illustrates how participants in the process struggled to reconcile concepts of biodiversity, nature, and Mother Earth represented in different cultures.…”