Search

This report provides a synthesis of argumentation analysis in real-world cases in “multi-level biodiversity governance”, investigated within the BESAFE project. Thefollowing broad research questions guided the synthesis of argumentation analysis in the case studies:• Which (different types of) arguments can be identified at different levels and units of biodiversity governance?• How are these arguments exchanged and put to work in multi-level and networked interactions (i.e. within and across different levels and units of biodiversity governance)?• How are these arguments rooted in and how do they feed into different perspectives, worldviews and functioning of social groups or institutions at the different levels and units of biodiversity governance?The study’s approach to answering these questions is guided by a three layer analytical framework. This framework comprises three different perspectives toargument-making practice. Together these enable a comprehensive understanding of the role of argumentation in multi-level biodiversity governance.The first layer takes the perspective that arguments are “products” of communication. The analysis focuses on the verbal content of arguments, i.e. what these arguments “say”. By comparing argument contents between global, European, national, regional and local governance levels, it was revealed that at both global and regional level, social arguments were most dominant, while at the European level economic arguments were more prominent. Comparison between European and national governance levels revealed little differences. Comparison between types of actors showed some differences of emphasis. Whereas most actors use the argument that biodiversity should be protected because of its inherent value, regional authorities more often referred to social wellbeing and national authorities to legal obligation. The analysis also considered variety of arguments. In general, variety was very limited. Politicians used the smallest variety of arguments, while the largest variety was found in the science actors. Furthermore, variety depended on communication channels (e.g. internet forums showed much variety). Lastly, arguments do change over time. Arguments on ecosystem services, for instance, became prominent at both global and European levels, but they often do not reach or persist at local levels of governance.The second layer of the framework uses the perspective of arguments being transactions between arguers and audiences. The focus here is on what actors “do” D3.1 Final report synthesising the analysis of argumentation in multi-level governance interactions in case studies with arguments, that is, what they aim to achieve with the arguments and whatstrategies they use. Plenty of strategies were identified, such as particularisation (e.g. stressing the uniqueness of a natural area to increase policy attention), upscaling (e.g. situating a biodiversity problem at a higher level of space or time to make it more important), dichotomisation (e.g. polarising between two alternatives to exclude the possibility of an intermediate solution) and aligning arguments to the goals and interests of others to affect policy outcomes in a way that suits own interests. Finally, actors used various channels to transmit argument. Main examples were local politicians, NGOs and mass media.The third layer takes the perspective of arguments as being conditioned by the social-institutional networks in which they are transmitted. The analysis focuses on how the arguments and the reasoning they communicate “fit” into the different perspectives, worldviews and functioning of social groups and institutions. It was shown that argumentation was highly conditioned by law and regulations, institutional roles and established practices. International obligation, in particular, empowered member states to implement biodiversity policy and to finish disputes. But legislation (and uncertainty about it) also hampered conservation efforts. Furthermore, established criteria used in conservation practice (e.g. rarity, threat and species richness) supported justification of the need for implementing biodiversity conservation measures. Finally, what actors considered as their interests and what they valued as a legitimate policy process (democratic, science-based and sufficient societal support) conditioned the argumentation.

This paper builds on the outputs of the book "Ecosystem Services - Global Issues, Local Practices" (Jacobs et al. 2013) with contributions from more than 80 authors from the BEES (Belgium Ecosystem Services) community of practice. In this context, we recently performed a (non-exhaustive) review of how the ecosystem service (ES) concept could be useful to Belgian and international policy actors. As the ultimate goal of ES valuation is to improve the well being of every individual now and in the future (MEA, 2005), this paper intends to elaborate on the concept of ES valuation and how it could (not?) reach the intended goal. A clear tension appears between policy actors' desire to acquire tools for monetary valuation and the risks posed by monetary valuation (e.g. commodification of nature, neglect of other values...). On the one hand, there is the need for 'proof of concept', and the availability of economic tools and mainstream character of 'money talk' is a pragmatic choice. On the other hand, we note a strong reluctance and critical attitude towards the culture of 'math and money' at all levels: it is perceived as one of the main causes of social and ecological unsustainability. Several actors therefore urge for more collaborative approaches of ES valuation, e.g. to build trust between providers and beneficiaries, as monetary valuation alone is not relevant in their working context. Among the suggested solutions are the development of alternative new valuation methods and practices - amongst others using social debate and including relations between humankind and nature - as well as methods to integrate different types of values (e.g. economic, heritage, and biodiversity value) in decision making. In particular, several actors point out the necessity to account for environmental thresholds and ecological values, to consider socio-ethical values, and to deal with uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in decisions and actions. In the first part of this paper, we expand on the main outcomes and challenges, while in the second part some tools and test cases are presented. We conclude that integrated valuation of ES could start reconciling human viewpoints on nature and pave the way forward to the intended social and ecological sustainability, but there is still a long way to go.

Kartering van ecosysteemdiensten (ESD) is traditioneel gebaseerd op biofysische ecosysteem¬ken¬mer¬ken en landgebruik. Moeilijk kwantificeerbare ESD (bvb. mogelijkheden voor recreatie of relaxatie) worden echter uit het oog verloren, net als de perceptie van gebruikers van ESD. Om hieraan tegemoet te komen, hebben we een kader voor een geïntegreerde waardering van ESD uitgewerkt, waarin een sociaal luik de biofysische en economische waardering vooraf gaat (Fontaine et al. 2013). Deze poster focust op een onderdeel van het sociale luik, nl. de participatieve kartering van ESD. We interview¬den 39 stakeholders uit Oud-Heverlee, Bierbeek, Beauvechain en Grez-Doiceau die ESD gebruiken en/of er een (beleids)invloed op hebben. De respondenten werd o.a. gevraagd de voor hen belangrijkste ESD te lokaliseren. Een inhoudsanalyse gaf aan welke ESD volgens de respondenten samen voorkomen (synergie), en welke ESD met mekaar conflicteren. De verspreiding van de gekar¬teer¬de ESD werd onderzocht m.b.v. landschapsecologische indicatoren (abundantie/frequentie, rijk¬dom aan ESD, diversiteit, zeldzaamheid, risico; verder sociale landschaps¬indicatoren genoemd). M.b.v. Spearman correlaties werden de ruimtelijke synergieën tussen ESD onderzocht. De geïnterviewden duidden 535 gebieden aan, in 264 gebieden kwamen ESD in synergie (193) of conflict (71) voor. De meest frequent gekarteerde ESD zijn esthetische ervaringen (18 % van de gebieden), recreatie (15 %) en voorzien van habitats (15 %). Verstedelijking werd gezien als de belangrijkste bedreiging voor het functioneren van ESD, net als conflicten tussen recreatie en habitats. De sociale landschapsindicatoren abundantie, rijkdom, risico, diversiteit en zeldzaamheid vatten de gepercipieerde verspreiding van ESD goed samen. De zeldzaamheidsindicator geeft aan in welke gebieden weinig vermeldde ESD voorkomen. De abundan¬tie geeft aan waar de meeste ESD vermeld werden door de respondenten (onafhankelijk van het type ESD), terwijl de rijkdomindicator aangeeft waar de meeste verschillende types ESD gelokaliseerd werden. De risico indicator geeft de gebieden aan waar er de meeste conflicten tussen ESD of tussen ESD en verstedelijking vermeld werden. De correlatie tussen individuele ESD en de sociale landschapsindicatoren enerzijds, en de ecologische waarde anderzijds is laag. Dit onderstreept het belang van het sociale waarderingsluik. Een combinatie van sociale, biofysische en economische waardering geeft een beter inzicht in een breed pallet aan ecosysteemdiensten. Het integreren van percepties van stakeholders over het functioneren van ESD in een geïntegreerde waarderingsoefening draagt bij aan een waardering die de realiteit beter weergeeft. Referenties Fontaine, Corentin M., Nicolas Dendoncker, Rik De Vreese, Ingrid Jacquemin, Allyson Marek, Ann Van Herzele, Guenaël Devillet, Dieter Mortelmans, and Louis François. 2013. "Participatory Valuation and Modelling of Ecosystem Services under Land Use Change." Journal of Land Use Science. doi:10.1080/1747423X.2013.786150.

This paper builds on the outputs of the book “Ecosystem Services – Global Issues, Local Practices” (Jacobs et al. 2013) with contributions from more than 80 authors from the BEES (Belgium Ecosystem Services) community of practice. In this context, we recently performed a (non-exhaustive) review of how the ecosystem service (ES) concept could be useful to Belgian and international policy actors. As the ultimate goal of ES valuation is to improve the well being of every individual now and in the future (MEA, 2005), this paper intends to elaborate on the concept of ES valuation and how it could (not?) reach the intended goal. A clear tension appears between policy actors’ desire to acquire tools for monetary valuation and the risks posed by monetary valuation (e.g. commodification of nature, neglect of other values…). On the one hand, there is the need for ‘proof of concept’, and the availability of economic tools and mainstream character of ‘money talk’ is a pragmatic choice. On the other hand, we note a strong reluctance and critical attitude towards the culture of ‘math and money’ at all levels: it is perceived as one of the main causes of social and ecological unsustainability. Several actors therefore urge for more collaborative approaches of ES valuation, e.g. to build trust between providers and beneficiaries, as monetary valuation alone is not relevant in their working context.Among the suggested solutions are the development of alternative new valuation methods and practices - amongst others using social debate and including relations between humankind and nature - as well as methods to integrate different types of values (e.g. economic, heritage, and biodiversity value) in decision making. In particular, several actors point out the necessity to account for environmental thresholds and ecological values, to consider socio-ethical values, and to deal with uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in decisions and actions. In the first part of this paper, we expand on the main outcomes and challenges, while in the second part some tools and test cases are presented. We conclude that integrated valuation of ES could start reconciling human viewpoints on nature and pave the way forward to the intended social and ecological sustainability, but there is still a long way to go. This paper builds on the outputs of the book “Ecosystem Services – Global Issues, Local Practices” (Jacobs et al. 2013) with contributions from more than 80 authors from the BEES (Belgium Ecosystem Services) community of practice. In this context, we recently performed a (non-exhaustive) review of how the ecosystem service (ES) concept could be useful to Belgian and international policy actors. As the ultimate goal of ES valuation is to improve the well being of every individual now and in the future (MEA, 2005), this paper intends to elaborate on the concept of ES valuation and how it could (not?) reach the intended goal. A clear tension appears between policy actors’ desire to acquire tools for monetary valuation and the risks posed by monetary valuation (e.g. commodification of nature, neglect of other values…). On the one hand, there is the need for ‘proof of concept’, and the availability of economic tools and mainstream character of ‘money talk’ is a pragmatic choice. On the other hand, we note a strong reluctance and critical attitude towards the culture of ‘math and money’ at all levels: it is perceived as one of the main causes of social and ecological unsustainability. Several actors therefore urge for more collaborative approaches of ES valuation, e.g. to build trust between providers and beneficiaries, as monetary valuation alone is not relevant in their working context.Among the suggested solutions are the development of alternative new valuation methods and practices - amongst others using social debate and including relations between humankind and nature - as well as methods to integrate different types of values (e.g. economic, heritage, and biodiversity value) in decision making. In particular, several actors point out the necessity to account for environmental thresholds and ecological values, to consider socio-ethical values, and to deal with uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in decisions and actions. In the first part of this paper, we expand on the main outcomes and challenges, while in the second part some tools and test cases are presented. We conclude that integrated valuation of ES could start reconciling human viewpoints on nature and pave the way forward to the intended social and ecological sustainability, but there is still a long way to go.

This paper describes a qualitative social assessment of ecosystem services (ESS), as part of an integrated ESS assessment in a peri-urban study area in central Belgium. We interviewed 39 decisionmakers and other people actively using and managing nature in the study area and asked them firstly what nature means to them, and secondly to assess the importance of 31 ecosystem services at the local scale. By applying a grounded theory-inspired analysis of the interview transcripts, we defined interviewees' images of nature. Two dimensions along which images of nature are revolving, emerged: on the one hand the nature versus culture dimension and on the other hand the view on the relation between nature and people. This paper elaborates on these dimensions and illustrates them trough interview quotes.We also demonstrate how the images of nature fit the ESS concept and ESS classification. We show how cultural and provisioning ESS are clearly present in the images of nature, regulating ESS are much less connectedto the images.

Ecosystem services mapping is traditionally based on land use and land cover data or on the spatial distribution of biophysical or abiotic assets and flows contributing to the provision of ecosystem services (Hindmarch et al., 2006). Our approach, however, is a stakeholder-based qualitative approach, aimed at mapping ecosystem services important to those living and working in the study area. We argue that this approach is more closely reflecting the philosophy of ecosystem services, that is, providing services to humans. By applying the social mapping urban forest governance and management can be tuned to users and beneficiaries' perceptions and expectations towards the urban forest. Within the VOTES-project (www.votes-project.be), 39 ecosystem services beneficiaries localised the - according to them - most important ecosystem services within the study area: a landscape combining forest, valleys and farmland. This interview-based social mapping gives an insight into the spatial distribution of the selected ecosystem services and stakeholders' rationale behind pointing the areas as important. The sketches made by the stakeholders have been mapped and digitized (vector-based). Using rasterization in GIS, hotspots of ecosystem services and potential conflicts and synergies between ecosystem services and between specific ecosystem services and urbanisation/land use change have been localised. The most frequently mapped ecosystem services were the cultural ecosystem services recreation, aesthetics and creating a sense of place, the regulating services creating habitat, opportunities for local species, flood protection and the provisioning service food production. The areas of conflict and synergy have been mapped based on respondents' sketches and content analysis of the interview transcripts. Urbanisation was frequently quoted as a threat to ecosystem services delivery, and almost none of the respondents positioned ecosystem services in the urban area. On the other hand, respondents pointed (protected) valleys and woods as zones with opportunities for strengthened ecosystem services provisioning. During the presentation, we will discuss the potential of the technique for ecosystem service non-monetary valuation, focusing on qualitative assessment of cultural ecosystem services and other ecosystem services that are hard to quantify.