SUBJECT: Biodiversity conservation through improved communication and benefit sharing schemes.
AUTHOR: Michalis Skourtos
DATE: 9th April 2003

KEYWORDS: Sustainability, biodiversity loss, communication, local knowledge, property rights

SUMMARY: Once the dichotomy of fact versus values is abandoned and proper communication is established between decision-makers and scientists, science and local knowledge will be more encouraged to benefit each other. Research should be focused on more 'subtle' and inclusive property rights regimes for biotic resources. Benefit-sharing schemes could be achieved by looking at negotiation breakdown through self-serving biases in fairness judgments.


It is hard to imagine human prosperity not dependent on the diversity of life. Wisely used, biotic resources guarantee the effective functioning of ecosystems that in turn supports past, present and future societies with a valuable range of key services. Nevertheless, this very prerequisite of sustainable living is currently under threat. The present e-conference underlines the role that science can play in reversing this trend. It is my contention that science will benefit in this respect if both scientists and decision-makers abandon the long established dichotomy of facts versus values when interfering with each other (House and Howe 1999). Only then can a true flow of information between evaluative discourse and scientific discourse take place (Norton 1998).

On a first level, the science of biodiversity can benefit from local knowledge in order to:
a) Support the choice of policy relevant spatial and time scales
b) Rank alternative working hypotheses
c) Achieve the appropriate level of abstraction and generalization

Science can also contribute to local knowledge by:
a) Informing the public on the technical conservation options available.
b) Set the lower and upper bounds for sustainable use of biotic resources.

From a policy point of view, the appropriation of (estimated) biodiversity values is equally important than their estimation. On the institutional level, a central focus of research should be therefore directed towards more 'subtle' and inclusive property rights regimes for biotic resources. This includes the need to realize investment opportunities, but goes beyond it by including questions of national sovereignty, natural heritage and global existence values. The corresponding 'property rights' regimes should be seen as a bundle of different use and access rights. How exactly scientific insights can help policy analysts in this respect remains to be investigated.

The ensuing issue of sharing the benefits of the sustainable use of biotic resources fairly reflects the issues of economic and cultural diversification of countries 'demanding' and 'providing' biodiversity. Normative principles of a fair benefit-sharing scheme are hardly agreed upon in multilateral environmental agreements. A possible way, I would especially recommend, is to look at negotiation breakdown through self-serving biases in fairness judgments.

References:

House E. R and K. R. Howe (1999), Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Norton, B.G. (1998), Improving ecological communication: The role of ecologists in environmental policy formation. Ecological Applications 8(2), pp. 350-364

A contribution by:

Michalis Skourtos
Department of Environmental studies
University of the Aegean
University Hill
Mytilene 81100
Greece