Why should ecosystem services be used for poverty alleviation? Establishing the ethical foundations of ESPA. (Short title: WhyESPA)

该提案概述了提出一个基本问题的研究：为什么要将生态系统服务用于减贫？这是一个根本性问题，因为在生态和社会权衡的情况下，生态系统服务不会自动造福穷人，但已被证明会增加给更富裕和更强大的行为者（Ronnback等人，2007; Daw等人，2011年）。这也是一个及时的问题，不仅因为许多环境干预措施继续发生在以根深蒂固的贫困为特征的环境中，而且还因为预计未来几十年非贫困和空间遥远的行为者对环境服务的需求将增加（Meyfroidt等人，2013年）的报告。对于我们将与之合作的保护社区来说，这是一个特别及时的问题，因为关于“新保护”和支持保护实践的伦理原则的积极辩论（Lalasz等人，2011; Soule，2013）。虽然ESPA的研究越来越多，但没有人全面考虑ESPA命题的伦理基础。该提案旨在解决这一差距，并通过利用当代保护辩论来影响本十年及以后关于环境管理的辩论。它包括三个机构的工作，解决为什么环境保护应该用于扶贫（PA）的问题：1）通过实证工作，我们试图了解如何在全球南北保护从业者合理化是否和为什么环境保护应该被用于扶贫;（2）通过新的理论工作，我们确定了政治哲学和环境伦理学中的理论，这些理论支持了环境保护应该为穷人治理的主张; 3）在与从业者的智囊团活动中，我们共同制作有关管理PA ES的道德基础的知识。跨国保护部门为这项研究提供了一个适当的重点，因为保护是一项深刻的道德事业，关注共同利益，非人类性质和未来几代人的前景。在关于“新保护”的辩论中，分歧的力量表明了潜在的伦理问题和权衡决定的重要性。从伦理角度来看，最关键的权衡可以被描述为：a）人类福祉与非人类本性，B）当代与后代，以及c）穷人与全人类的更大利益。这是围绕这些权衡，无论是经验和理论工作将位于。我们专注于保护非政府组织有两个原因。首先，他们形成了关于保护的国际思想的先锋（亚当斯，2004年），他们的影响是重大的，因为他们的跨国范围。其次，我们以前的工作表明，ES概念在保护部门有重要的影响，特别是允许一些保护组织更新优先考虑穷人作为保护的受益者的理由（费舍尔和布朗，提交）。这些迹象，结合新的辩论“新的保护”，可能意味着出现了一个混合的保护伦理相结合的关注人类和生态系统，以某种方式有关的概念ES。因此，现在是时候调查这些现象的经验，在保护sector.We假设，把注意力转向道德问题可能有助于解决ES权衡，通过确定一个明确的和辩护的情况下，从从业者和理论的支持，为什么最贫穷的人应该优先。提出这一主张有可能带来变革，因为现实情况是，在许多情况下，穷人和最穷的人无法继续获得环境服务，特别是在治理发生变化的情况下。因此，我们提出的研究有可能提供一个步骤的变化，如何贫困和治理ES的概念化，反过来，如何相关的权衡可能会得到解决。

This proposal outlines research asking a fundamental question: why should ecosystem services be used for poverty alleviation? It is a fundamental question because, in the presence of ecological and social trade-offs, ecosystem services (ES) do not automatically benefit poor people, but have been demonstrated to accrue to better-off and more powerful actors (Ronnback et al., 2007; Daw et al., 2011). It is also a timely question, not only because many environmental interventions continue to take place in settings characterised by entrenched poverty but also because demand for ES from non-poor and spatially distant actors is predicted to rise in coming decades (Meyfroidt et al., 2013). It is a particularly timely question for the conservation community, with whom we will work, because of active debates about the 'new conservation' and the ethical principles underpinning conservation practice (Lalasz et al., 2011; Soule, 2013). While a growing body of ESPA research now exists, none has comprehensively considered the ethical foundations of the ESPA proposition. This proposal is designed to address this gap and influence the terms of debate on environmental management in this decade and beyond, by harnessing contemporary debates in conservation. It comprises three bodies of work addressing the question of why ES should be used for poverty alleviation (PA): 1) Through empirical work, we seek to understand how conservation practitioners in the global north and south rationalise whether and why ES should be governed for PA; 2) Through novel theoretical work, we identify theories in political philosophy and environmental ethics underpinning the proposition that ES should be governed for the poor; 3) in a Think Tank event with practitioners, we co-produce knowledge about the ethical underpinnings of governing ES for PA. The transnational conservation sector provides an appropriate focus for this research because conservation is a deeply ethical undertaking, having concerns for the common good, non-human nature and the prospects of future generations at its core. The strength of disagreement in debates about the 'new conservation' signifies the underlying ethical concerns and the importance attributed to decisions over trade-offs. From an ethical perspective, the most critical trade-offs can be characterised as: a) human wellbeing vs. non-human nature, b) current vs. future generations and c) the poor vs. the greater good of all humans. It is around these trade-offs that both the empirical and the theoretical work will be situated.We focus upon conservation NGOs for two reasons. Firstly, they form the vanguard of international thinking about conservation (Adams, 2004), and their influence is significant because of their transnational reach. Secondly, our previous work indicates that ES concepts have important implications in the conservation sector, in particular allowing some conservation organisations to renew rationales for prioritising poorer people as beneficiaries of conservation (Fisher and Brown, submitted). These indications, combined with fresh debates about the 'new conservation', may signify the emergence of a hybrid conservation ethic combining concern for humans and ecosystems, related somehow to the concept of ES. Therefore, it is timely to investigate these phenomena empirically in the conservation sector.We hypothesise that turning attention to ethical concerns might serve to resolve ES tradeoffs, through the identification of an explicit and defensible case, from practitioners and supported by theory, of why the poorest should take priority. Making this case has the potential to be transformational, as the reality is that in many instances, the poor and poorest cannot maintain access to ES, particularly when governance changes. Hence, the research we propose has the potential to provide a step-change in how poverty and the governance of ES are conceptualised, and in turn, how related trade-offs may be resolved.