The Rationality of a Safe Minimum Standard

Neglected Features of the Safe Minimum Standard: Socio-economic and Institutional Dimensions

“…Thus, the social framework with society's institutions and decision processes need to be rationally devised to favor socially rational decisions. These thoughts point to a recent attempt to determine SMS through discursive decisions within the communities concerned (e.g., Farmer and Randall 1998). Yet, it is desirable that the framework for these discourses is socially rational.…”

“…The possibility of defining SMS within a socially rational setting can be seen in a quite new discussion (although it is compatible with Ciriacy-Wantrup's original analysis). It invovles setting SMS by discourse and political consensus Toman 1997, Farmer andRandall 1998). With respect to this discussion one important issue is CiriacyWantrup's emphasis on institutional analysis.…”

“…The prospect of extending this approach to devise SMS has been discussed (e.g., Farmer and Randall 1998). However, in reality, it all depends!…”

“…Distilling an ideal SMS from individual preferences is probably an uphill battle (see also Norton and Hannon 1997;Farmer and Randall 1998). Yet, there are good reasons to hope that the incipient discussion on a discursive devising of SMS may be able to propose devices and methods to reduce conflicts.…”

Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments

“…The question of what should be done in such cases has generated much debate, but one approach is the adoption of ecological standards (see subsequent discussion of 'safe minimum standards') to ensure the sustainability of resources (such as the continued existence of species) which are not amenable to valuation (Farmer and Randall, 1998). This would not negate the need for economic analysis which would still play an important role in the identification of cost-effective approaches to ensuring the maintenance or the provision ecologically sustainable levels 41 .…”