An ecological economic approach to forest and biodiversity conservation: The case of vanuatu

World

Dewh/menr.

Pergamon

Vol. 25, No. 12, pp. 1995-2008. 1997 0 1997 Else&x Science Ltd All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain 0305-750x/97 $17.00+0.00

PII: s0305-750x(97)00101-0

An Ecological Biodiversity

Economic

Approach to Forest and

Conservation:

The Case of Vanuatu

The Australian

LUCA TACCONI National University, Canberra, Australia

Summary. The paper presents an ecological economic approach to forest and biodiversity conservation. Constructivist philosophy of social science is critically reviewed and adopted as the methodological basis of the approach. The paradigmatic basis of ecological economics is discussed and a model of human behavior suited to ecological economics is presented. This model accounts for altruistic. normative/affective, and irrational behavior, as well as the role of institutions, A discussion 01 participatory land use planning, which also accounts for intergenerational equity issues, completes the presentation of the ecological economic approach. Its application to the conservation of forests and biodiversity in Vanuatu demonstrates the operational applicability of the proposed approach. 0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Ke! M.o~& -

constructivism,

participation,

protected

I. INTRODUCTION It is common for economic analyses to concentrate on the analysis of the tools to be employed and/ or in presenting the research output. Here, these two issues will be considered. Particular attention however, will also be paid to methodology. Kuhn (1970) in fact argues that the specific paradigm adopted by the researcher structures the research problem by providing implicit rules regarding what issues are relevant, how to proceed in the analysis and what analytical tools may be employed in addressing the research questions. It is indeed a major objective of this paper to present an ecological economic approach to forest and biodiversity conservation. The applicability of the proposed ecological economics approach to real world policy is shown through the case of Vanuatu.’ In discussing biodiversity policies, Norton and Ulanowicz (1992) note that, in studying ecosystems conservation, biologists should follow both a criterion of rigor and a criterion of relevance to policy development. This is a rather important issue to be considered in social science research. In fact, Uphoff (1992. p. 295) notes that there appears to be “an inverse relationship between rigor and relevance in most social science work”. Uphoff refers to that conception of rigor normally associated with positivist methodology. He remarks that social scientists have become trapped in the positivist paradigm. As a result, they not only refrain from tackling issues that do not suit their methods, but in the name of objectivity, they also feel compelled to refrain from

areas. land use. Pacific. Vanuatu

taking any action aimed at influencing the situation being considered. It iq not my intent to negate the importance of speculative, curiosity-driven research for the advancement of knowledge. Rather, it is stressed here that policy-oriented research which deals with issues affecting various stakeholders calls for a methodology significantly different from that which may be adopted in curiosity-driven research (Funtowicz and Rave&, 1991). In this context. constructivism is critically reviewed and adopted as the methodological basis for the proposed ecological economic framework. To face the challenge of reducing the rate at

*Many thanks to colleagues who provided useful comments on earlier drafts of the paper presented at seminars at the Centre for International Forestry Research, Food and Agriculture Organization Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The World Bank, The University of Florence. and at the Xth International Conference of the Society for the Advancement of SocioEconomics. The Socio-Economic Foundations of (I Just Society, Universite de Geneve, Geneva. July 12-14, 1996. I also thank my wife Nancy for proof-reading the manuscript, and two anonymous reviewers for providing helpful comments. Research for this paper was partly supported by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Project No. 9020, “The socio-economic assessment of native forest preservation proposals in Vanuatu: implications for forest management.” At the ttme of the fieldwork described in the paper. the author was a Research Fellow at The University of New South Wales. Final revision accepted: June 26, 1997.

1995

WORLD DEVELOPMENT

1996

which biodiversity is lost, both the Global Biodiversity Strategy (World Resource Institute: WRI et al., 1992) and the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED, 1987) call for a strategic approach to biodiversity policy. WCED (1987, p. 201) notes: Development patterns must be altered to make them more compatible with the preservation of the extremely valuable biological diversity of the planet. Altering economic and land use patterns seems to be the best long-term approach to ensuring the survival of wild

species and their ecosystems. The aim of the ecological economic approach presented here is to contribute to a definition of the above strategic approach to biodiversity conservation. It attempts to go beyond the piece-meal approach proper of neoclassical environmental economics (NEE). With its focus on problems that lie at the margin, NEE may only be used in the assessment of “bits and chunks” of biodiversity. The use of NEE may be useful in certain circumstances. But, the issues involved in developing a strategic approach to biodiversity conservation cannot be fully addressed within the NEE paradigm. There is some consensus that protected areas (PAS) are among the most valuable tools for maintaining biodiversity (WRI et al., 1992). The paper will focus, therefore, on the application of the theoretical framework to PAS. The paper proceeds as follows. Constructivist methodology is considered first. Then, the paradigmatic basis of ecological economics (ECE) is discussed. A model of human behavior wider than the neoclassical economic one is presented and its implications for economic analysis are discussed. This is followed by a discussion regarding intergenerational distribution of resources and participatory methods of ecosystem planning and assessment. Then, the application of the framework to Vanuatu is detailed, before proceeding to the discussion of salient points concerning the application of the ECE framework.

2. CONSTRUCTIVISM Positivist philosophy has dominated scientific research during most of the 20th century. It has been discredited or rejected by philosophers of science (e.g. Suppe, 1974). Many economists call for the adoption of positivism, but the economic profession has failed to do so partly because of the weaknesses of positivist methodology and partly because of a lack of understanding of methodological issues (Caldwell, 1982; McCloskey, 1985). Despite its limits, positivist methodology has been

useful in the advancement of science and should not be totally discarded (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1991). Furthermore, modem societies understand scientific problems in terms of positivist concepts therefore, until there is widespread knowledge of the shortcomings of positivism, the use of positivist arguments may be justified in certain circumstances (Norgaard, 1989). Because of the above arguments, with this paper I do not intend to suggest that positivist methodology should be completely abandoned. In fact, it is important to maintain and apply a plurality of methodologies for a variety of reasons that have been detailed by Norgaard (1989). My interest here is to present a coherent theoretical ecological economic framework rooted in constructivist methodology. Because of space limitations, I detail elsewhere (Tacconi, forthcoming) why I consider constructivism to be a methodology more appropriate than positivism for the analysis of environmental issues. During the 1980s and 1990s methodological proposals alternative to positivism have flourished. Critical realism (Gandy, 1996), postmodernism (Harvey, 1989; Midmore, 1996), post-normal science (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1991), soft system science (Checkland and Scholes, 1990) and constructivism are some of these new methodological approaches. Given their recent origin there is a need to assess their strengths, weaknesses, and complementarities (e.g. Tacconi, forthcoming; Woodhill and RGling, forthcoming). Here, I discuss constructivist methodology because it was the one adopted at the time when the ecological economic framework presented here was developed and applied (Tacconi, 1995b). Moreover, because of space limitations, constructivism is presented through the writings of Guba (1990), who describes concisely its tenets. The readers interested in understanding the origins of constructivism, the scholars who have contributed to its development, and its disciplinary roots may consider consulting the text edited by Guba (1990). Maturana and Varela (1992), and Hannigan (1995). The constructivist paradigm has been summarized by Guba (1990) as follows. - The ontology (i.e. nature of reality) is relativist. There exist multiple realities that are mentally and socially constructed. - The epistemology (i.e. relationship between the knower and the known) is subjectivist. Inquirer and inquired into are fused into a single entity. Findings are literally the creation of the process of interaction between the two. - The methodology (i.e. method of investigation) is dialectic. Individual constructions are refined and compared dialectically, with the aim of achieving substantial consensus. I do not fully endorse the paradigm presented by

AN ECOLOGICAL

ECONOMIC

Cuba (1990). The adoption of the constructivist paradigm is criticized by some ecological economists because it denies biophysical constraints on social life (Jacobs, 1996). Critical realists (e.g., Candy, 1996: Pratt, 1995) suggest that the constructivist ontological position suffers from a shortcoming: in constructivist ontology, being is determined by knowledge. Think about the Earth without human beings. A reality would exist and would not be socially constructed (by humans). Therefore, a reality exists whether constructed or not by humans. But, existing human beings see only particular aspects of “reality.” This leads to a reformulation of the relativist ontology presented above. There exists a physical reality subject to differing interpretations by human beings. Thus, there exist multiple socially constructed realities. In terms of environmental studies, this definition implies that there may be biophysical limits to social life. These limits however, are interpreted differently by different actors. Thus, there are problems in defining and measuring sustainability. Constructivist epistemology recognizes that inquiry is value-bound. The research process is intluenced, for instance, by the inquirer’s values (e.g., they may determine the choice of the problem), and by the theory used to collect and analyze data, and to interpret the findings. Constructivism also asserts that the inquiry cannot be an objective. detached process. Moreover, it also claims that the inquiry process should not be an objective and detached process in the positivist sense. A more moderate epistemological position than that advocated by Cuba (1990), and still consistent with constructivist philosophy, is proposed for adoption. - The inquirer and the researched are not two totally separate entities. Findings are strongly influenced by the process of interaction between the two. After considering epistemological aspects, we can now consider methodological issues. There are always local and unique conditions that limit the usefulness of time and context-free generalizations proper of the positivist methodology. But. the researcher may derive time and context-specific generalizations, or working hypotheses, using in depth knowledge of the specific situation gained through the extended, interactive research process. Working hypotheses come late in the research process and are tentative both for the particular condition in which they are developed and for other contexts. Working hypotheses may be transferable to other situations. The degree to which this is possible depends, however, on the similarity between the different contexts. The constructivist research process differs to a great extent from the conventional

APPROACH

1997

TO CONSERVATION

positivist one. The detailed features of the constructivist research process may be found in Lincoln and Guba (1985). A further important issue to be emphasized is that the adoption of constructivist methodology does not imply abandoning a rigorous research process. The rigor of the constructivist research process may be maintained by setting criteria aimed at guiding a disciplined inquiry process. A set of such criteria has been developed, discussed and revised in a series of studies (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Marshall, 1990; Smith, 1990) and has been summarized by Pretty (1995). The constructivist paradigm described above is well suited to a research approach that is policy driven and aimed at implementing the research findings through the participation of the stakeholders in the research process. After having considered the methodological basis of the approach to research adopted here, the analysis turns to the paradigmatic basis of ECE.

3. ECOLOGICAL

ECONOMICS

The analysis of sustainability and its achievement are the centerpieces of ECE. ECE is issue-driven. To address better the issues of interest, it maintains transdisciplinarity and attempts to avoid framing issues on the basis of the available tools. ECE may use the tools of neoclassical economics, but new approaches may also be needed (Costanza er al., 1991). Sahu and Nayak (1994) describe NEE and ECE as occupying niches that are in some respects complementary and in others competitive. These authors present a rather clear description of ECE and a classification of the similarities and differences between the ECE and NEE. Table 1 summarizes some of these differences. From the table it is clear that there are significant differences between NEE and ECE. This view is also put forward by Soderbaum (1992) and Opschor (1994). The latter author argues that ECE is rooted in institutional economics, draws on biophysics and ecology, and also borrows from “modern evolutionary economics.“’ Due to its roots in institutional and evolutionary economics, ECE uses simulation models more than optimization models. These roots also imply that ECE considers “institutionalised bounds to the domain of economic rationality and the scale of economic activity” (Opschor, 1994, p. 12). ECE searches for coevolutionary development. Swaney (1987) remarks that the concept of coevolutionary sustainability means that development paths posing serious threats to continued compatible evolution of social and ecological systems should be avoided. A characteristic that ECE has derived from

WORLD DEVELOPMENT

1998

Table 1. Some tenets of neoclassical environmental economics and ecological economics Dimension Main theory Approach World view Knowledge-acquisition process Character Scarcity perception View of future Problem-solving orientation Focus Methods of (c)valuation Dominant theme

NEE

ECE

neoclassical economics Allocation of resource use mechanistic-reductionist positivist

biophysical plus physiocratic and classical economics Scale, distribution and allocation of resource use evolutionary-holistic suhjectivist reflecting values and ideology

monodisciplinary relative technological optimism based on market system short-term CBA anthropocentric

multidisciplinary absolute prudent pessimism based on laws of nature long-term EIS, positional analysis, carrying capacity analysis anthropocentric with attempts to include biocentric ecocentric considerations

and

Source: Adapted from Sahu and Nayak (1994, pp. 15-16).

economics is that there exist societal values that are not just the sum of the individual values. Institutional economics asserts that there is a hierarchy of values. For instance, in this hierarchy values related to continuity of life or social reproduction are above the daily needs and wants of individuals (e.g., Swaney, 1987)” In Table I, the entry “Problem-solving orientation” describes ECE as “based on laws of nature.” This is a rather generic definition which does not fully represent the “problem-solving orientation” of ECE and unduly accentuates the differentiation between ECE and NEE. In fact, the market system plays an important role not only in the “problemsolving orientation” of NEE but also of ECE. This has been stressed by Page (1991). He outlines the features of a two-tiered ecological economic approach. The first tier defines the circumstances under which the second tier operates. For example, the constitution of a country is part of the first tier. The second tier includes legislatures, courts and markets. The first tier should contain sustainability rules that would contribute to define the boundaries within which markets would operate. An important point is that the principle of non-interference should be adopted. “The idea is that instruments implementing the conditions of the first tier should be broad, avoiding minute control in the day-to-day workings of markets and the ordinaly second tier institutions” (Page, 1991, p. 70). In respect to the “method of (c)valuation” entry, it is important to note that such sharp distinctions between the tools employed within NEE and ECE are incorrect. For instance, cost-benefit analysis (CBA) studies are being published by the journal Ecological Economics, showing that CBA is indeed used in ecological economic analysis. This is due to the fact that ECE seeks to remain a non-dogmatic discipline open to various contributions, but also because allocative efficiency is accepted as an institutional

indicator to be used, together with scale and distribution, in environmental decision-making. Certainly, the ECE position that efficiency is one of the factors to be considered differs from NEE that takes efficiency as its guiding rule. Therefore, CBA is only one of the possible tools to be employed in ECE. The paradigmatic position of ECE may be enriched by building on the insightful model of individual behavior that is at the basis of NEE. This is done below.

4. EXPANDING

THE HUMAN BEHAVIORAL SPACE

In NEE, the individual is regarded as the fundamental decision-making unit. The individual is assumed to be a self-interested utility-maximizing agent, who makes rational decisions on the basis of stable preferences. Here, it is argued that there are other dimensions of the human behavioral space that should be taken into account in the economic approach to the study of environmental questions. This expanded human behavioral space, which includes the one employed in NEE, is depicted in Figure I. The dimensions of the human behavioral space are based on the arguments advanced by institutionalists and socioeconomists.

(a) Behavior mode Behavior mode refers to the type of process underlying the choice of goals and means made by individuals and institutions. Etzioni (1988) proposes a behavior mode broader than that assumed in the neoclassical model (i.e. global rationality in choosing means4). He asserts that “normative and affective” values are the most important bases for the choice of ends and means. Normative values is a

AN ECOLOGICAL ECONOMIC APPROACH TO CONSERVATION

a

F

D

society

E

A normattve

B rational

Behavior

Aggregation

C

level

individual other-regarding

#elf-interested

Morality

mode

Figure 1. Human behavioral space.

category that includes both moral values (e.g., do not kill, do not steal) and social values (e.g., freedom, justice). Affective values refers to emotions such as love, hate and stress. Affective values are particularistic (i.e. apply to a restricted personal basis), whereas normative values have wider claims that extend beyond the personal level. Etzioni (1988) suggests that the behavior mode may be considered as a continuum that may be divided into three zones. (4 The exclusion zone: only normative and affective values determine choice; logical and empirical factors are not used. (b) The infusion zone: normative and affective values are the main factors influencing choice, however, logical and empirical factors are also used. (cl The indifference zone: logical and empirical calculation is deemed a suitable basis for decision-making, according to the held normative and affective values. Normative and affective values do not influence choice in this zone; they demarcate the zone. Other factors affect logical and empirical calculation in this zone (and also in the infusion zone). The limited computational power of the brain is an important factor in limiting rational decision-making in this zone.

(b) Morality Morality refers to the range of behavior that spans from self-interested to other-regarding behavior. The conception of other-regarding behavior, unlike selfregarding behavior, does not imply benefits for the agent that carries out the action. Sagoff (1988) proposes that individuals act not only as consumers (self-regarding behavior) but also as citizens (other-regarding behavior). The citizen is concerned with the public interest and judgment is based on historical, ideological, aesthetic, sentimen-

I999

tal, and moral values. The individual faces an internal conflict between the consumer-self and the citizen-self. According to Sagoff, however, people act as citizens when deliberating on social questions such as environmental problems. It should be pointed out that Sagoff appears not only to attempt to understand how people make decisions about the environment; in his writings there appears to be a rather strong emphasis on the fact that people OU@ to decide on environmental issues as citizens (Jacobs, 1994). Acceptance of the fact that people may act as citizens does not of course imply the endorsement of the ou~$zt to position.

On the basis of methodological individualism, the individual is the only relevant unit of analysis in NEE. But, there are other units at higher aggregation levels that make decisions which cannot be regarded as the simple sum of individual decisions. In an all-encompassing view, an institution may be defined as “a social organisation which, through the operation of tradition, custom or legal constraint, tends to create durable and routinized patterns of behavior” (Hodgson, 1988, p. 10). This definition, which emphasises the factors that shape institutions, includes both “immaterial” institutions such as habits and “rules of the game” (e.g., property rights system), and institutions intended as organisations. Institutions have several functions. They contribute to the formation of the conceptual framework employed by agents in the interpretation of “reality” (Hodgson, 1988) and influence the perception of what constitutes the agent’s self-interest (Etzioni, 1988; Hodgson, 1988). By establishing routinized behavior, institutions provide information to agents thus reducing uncertainty. This decreases the demands on the limited capacity of the human brain. Finally, those institutions that make decisions (such as the corporation and the clan) have larger cognitive powers than the individual, and may be able to carry out decision-making processes of a higher logical degree than the individual (Etzioni, 1988). Of course, this does not eliminate the possibility that organisations may make decisions on the basis of normative factors, or that they face limitations in carrying out rational decision-making processes. It is not my intent to argue that individuals act only in other-regarding ways rather than in a selfinterested way, or that specific institutions should be the focus of the analysis instead of the individual. Rather, I argue that each individual and institution may present irrational and rational behavior, selfinterested and other-regarding behavior, and that there is a continuous interaction between the lower aggregation level (the individual) and higher aggre-

WORLD DEVELOPMENT

2ooo

gation levels. This interaction shapes and reshapes rules, behavior and goals. This “variety” of behavior should be accounted for in the decision-making process, and in the design of tools employed for the economic analysis of ecosystem use. The analysis presented above has highlighted several issues relevant to the decision-making framework regarding forest and biodiversity conservation. It is now time to draw these issues together and consider their implications.

5. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE DECISIONMAKING FRAMEWORK (a) Sustainability,

distribution and efjiciency

There may be efficient allocations of resources that are not compatible with the sustainable use of ecosystems and are also inequitable. The standpoint adopted here is that ecosystem use patterns should be chosen on the basis of their sustainability and distributional aspects together with the efficiency aspect. This would not appear to conflict with the neoclassical view that resource allocations should be efficient. The two positions would only be in conflict if the particular neoclassical view that the resource use option that provides the highest monetary benefits should be chosen.

important implications for the study of environmentaleconomic issues. First, the focus of the analysis should not only be on the individuals and goods but also on institutions. Institutions provide the framework within which ecosystem use decisions are made. The existence of appropriate institutions has particular importance in determining whether ecosystem use patterns may be sustainable, equitable and efficient. Second, the decision-making framework should enable individuals and institutions to update their goals, to express their “selfish to other-regarding” views, and to facilitate the logical decision-making process. A participatory decision-making process may go a certain way toward better addressing the above points compared to a “snapshot” approach to decisionmaking. This has particular influence on the role of the researcher and will be further considered below. Vatn and Bromley (1994, p. 145) affirm that “the most fundamental environmental choices will continue to be made without prices - and without apologies.” The standing questions are: how will they be made, and what is the role of economics in the environmental decision-making process? The following sections delve deeper into these issues with specific focus on questions regarding future generations, rural people, forests, biodiversity and PAS.

6. PARTICIPATORY (b) Distribution The positivist view that it is possible to carry out value-free science has resulted in the progressive separation of economics from ethics. Neoclassical economists have tended to shy away from openly addressing ethical issues. This has resulted, of course, in taking ethical positions by default. By not addressing the question of distribution of resources, the implicit ethical position is that equity issues are not important. Distribution may refer to the distribution of resources between generations or within a generation. Both aspects are of particular interest to conservation policies. Intergenerational distribution will be considered in the next section. Aspects of distributional issues with respect to the current generation will be considered in the section dealing with the case studies.

(c) Decision-making

LAND USE PLANNING

Land use planning recognizes that multiple demands on resources have to be satisfied and attempts to formulate resource use plans in ways that allow the different needs to be satisfied. This is achieved through the separation of extreme conflicts in use by delineating the objectives of each zone and the activities allowed in the zone. In economic terms, this is a cost-effective and viable approach to the reduction of externalities and the achievement of goals other than just efficiency. The adoption of land use planning principles in forest management is also required for pragmatic reasons. The lack of data about physical factors such as soil erosion, the hydrological cycle and biodiversity characteristics limits the practical applicability of NEE. Hence, land use planning may be adopted in order to carry out forestry activities while minimising negative environmental effects.’ Land use planning may be guided by ethical considerations and participatory decisionmaking processes.

process

Preferences and ends may change. Individuals and institutions may show behavior ranging from selfish to other-regarding. Their behavior may range from rational to normative. Individuals influence institutions and vice-versa. All these elements have

(a) Intergenerational equity and biodiversity conservation In Vanuatu, article 7d of the Constitution deals with the use of ecosystems. it states that every

AN ECOLOGICAL

ECONOMIC

person in Vanuatu is obliged to protect Vanuatu and to safeguard the national wealth, resources and environment in the interest of the present generation and of future ones. What does this imply in terms of biodiversity conservation, and for PAS in particular? How should article 7d be operationalized? These questions are addressed by Tacconi and Bennett (1995a). We explored the rights of future generations and derived three degrees of intergenerational equity in natural resource use. Extensive intergenerational equity requires that different generations have equal access to natural capital.6 This may be achieved by not reducing the stock of renewable natural capital and by progressively facilitating the substitution of non-renewable natural capital with renewable natural capital in the economic process. Intermediate intergenerational equity in resource distribution requires non-negative changes in the stock of renewable natural capital. This implies that the stock of non-renewable natural capital is progressively depleted without consideration of the impact on future generations. Minimal intergenerational equity requires the maintenance of critical renewable natural capital which provides life support functions. This concept of intergenerational equity is the one closest to the obligation of not harming future generations. Biodiversity is a critical attribute of renewable natural capital and conserving biodiversity assists in protecting critical life support functions. There is a debate about how biodiversity may best be protected (World Conservation Monitoring Centre: WCMC, 1992). There is consensus that PAS are among the most valuable tools for maintaining biodiversity (WRI et al., 1992; UNEP, 1995). Among other benefits, PAS contribute to the maintenance of the ecological processes within and outside the PA, if they are appropriately situated. These benefits could be enjoyed by the present and future generations. But the establishment of a system of PAS only partially fulfills the requirements for the attainment of minimul intergenerational equity. Therefore, it would appear that the decision to establish a system of PAS should not be subjected to an economic efficiency analysis. The economic assessment of PAS should rather concentrate on cost-effectiveness and intragenerational distribution issues. Once a system of PAS that satisfies currently recognized ecological standards is set up, the establishment of other PAS may be based on intragenerational distribution, efficiency considerations, and the satisfaction of local peoples’ needs.

(b) Participator?, decision-making Participatory approaches to decision-making have received particular attention by authors active in the people-centered approach to development. The

APPROACH

TO CONSERVATION

2001

agenda of this approach is concerned with poverty alleviation, people’s empowerment through active participation, gender issues and importance of people’s knowledge (Oakley et al., 1991; Pretty, 1995; Scoones and Thompson, 1993). Of particular relevance is how this approach views the social environment, the role of the researcher and that of the people, and the scientific stance adopted. According to Scoones and Thompson (1993) five tenets underpin this approach. (a) Communities and rural people have differentiated interests and goals, power and access to resources. (b) The learning process approach’ is adopted; planning is carried out with dynamic and adaptive implementation of negotiated outcomes; collaboration requires negotiation and empowerment. (c) The outsider is a visible actor in process learning and action, and is a facilitator, initiator and catalyst. (d) The insider is an active participant in the process and is a creative investigator and analyst. (e) A post-positivist stance of investigation is adopted. Participatory research is favored. Various methodologies of participatory research and decision-making processes have been developed and may be integrated into land use planning. For example, these methods are represented in the writings of Davis-Case (1990) and Whyte (1991). Chambers (1994) presents a comprehensive overview of the methods and a review of the issues and challenges involved in participatory research. Some features of the participatory approach have been discussed by Tacconi (199Sa) and are summarized below. - It can be argued that it is a right of every citizen and community to be enabled to participate in making decisions which may have an impact on their own livelihood. - Participatory research allows the stakeholders to express their actual objectives (ends) and to decide how these may be better achieved (means). NEE assumes that the ends are given (i.e. maximization of net present monetary value) and that the choice of means is not constrained by cultural and moral values. Participatory analysis allows the people to evaluate the alternative ecosystem uses according to their specific needs and rationales. - A participatory process may help in making decisions of a higher logical content than those made in a “snapshot” approach, typical of NEE analysis. Unlike questionnaire surveys, for example carried out as part of contingent valuation studies, participatory decision-making facilitates interaction among individuals and between individuals and institutions.

WORLD

2002

DEVELOPMENT

- Participatory evaluation may help in empowering the local people in making better use of their environment and in controlling external forces which may negatively affect their livelihood. - Sufficient scientific data about environmental processes are often lacking and also expensive to collect. These data may be successfully integrated with indigenous traditional knowledge through participatory land use planning. In designing conservation initiatives it is therefore important to assess the local peoples’ needs and wants and to determine how these may be linked to ecosystem conservation. Local peoples’ needs and wants may or may not coalesce with the interests of other people of the current generation (who do not live close to the areas being considered for conservation) or with the interests of future generations. Mechanisms to enable these interests to coalesce and/or to resolve conflicts have to be defined case by case. The following case studies exemplify how this has been done in Vanuatu.

7. CONSERVATION

IN VANUATU

In Vanuatu, the land is owned according to customary rules. Customary ownership rules vary across the country, however it may be safely stated that ownership is normally entrusted to individuals or small family groups. The state owns land only in the two small urban areas. The land ownership structure dictates that landowners must be involved in any process of land management.

(a) The Erromango

Kauri Protected

Area

The first case study relates to an area of kauri forest on the island of Erromango: the Erromango Kauri Protected Area (EKPA). The issues researched and the research methodology adopted depended partly on the historical conditions existing at the beginning of the research process. Specifically, as a result of negotiations that had occurred between the landowners and the government before the onset of the research process (Tacconi, 1995b; Tacconi and Bennett, 1995b), the landowners expected the Government of Vanuatu to lease their land in order to establish the EKPA. This influenced the approach to the assessment of local conservation needs and the design of a compensation framework. The landowners had already been offered an agreement to lease their land for conservation purposes. Therefore, it would have not been in their interest to reveal whether they would protect the forest without government intervention. In fact, this would have reduced the likelihood of them receiving

compensation payments. The assessment of their conservation needs through a participatory research appraisal (PRA) approach appeared, therefore, inappropriate. One of the landowners suggested that he was thinking of protecting the area even if the government did not intervene. This intent could have been due to an interest in conserving the environment in its current state and/or in protecting the land in order to pass it on to his children. Other landowners either did not openly express their intent in relation to the area or had previously signed a logging contract. Therefore, it was decided to consider the contribution of subsistence uses of forest products to the local peoples’ livelihood, using rapid rural appraisal (RRA) tools, and the potential value of logging royalties. This assessment was considered to provide an indication of whether the landowners would conserve the forest without external intervention. The assessment showed that the local people depend on the secondary forest close to the village for their subsistence requirements. Shifting cultivation, fuelwood collection, and provision of building materials do not take place in the EKPA. The collection of medicinal plants and food in the EKPA is also very limited. This implies that landowners would not face shortages of subsistence produce were they to allow logging in the EKPA. By not allowing logging, they would forego financial benefits in the form of logging royalties. These had to be estimated to assess the amount of compensation to be provided to landowners. Two issues relating to the question of compensation had to be clarified before proceeding to the definition of the compensation package. First, it was not evident that a land lease agreement was the option favored by the landowners. Moreover, it was unclear to both the landowners and the Department of Forests how much in terms of lease payments would represent a sufficient compensation for the benefits foregone by the landowners. The assessment of these issues was carried out with the landowners through a participatory approach. Discussions were held with the landowners on the possibility of developing an income-generating project in exchange for the landowners’ undertaking to protect the forest. They did not favor this option. They argued that the development of economic activities in the area is constrained by the lack of roads and access to markets. In addition, it is obvious that, for the landowners, an income generating project is riskier than a lease agreement. The option of building a road to link their villages to the closest airstrip and boat landing was then considered. A road could be built in exchange for the landowners’ commitment to conserve the forest area. One of the landowners noted that this option would have been accepted, if it was put to a village meeting although

AN ECOLOGICAL ECONOMIC APPROACH TO CONSERVATION

he did not agree with it. He is the owner of the land and the road project would not provide him with the benefits he expected. This may be regarded as an expression of self-interested behavior. The option of a lease agreement was therefore considered in detail. The land use options open to the landowners were: signing a lease agreement with the government (with the details to be defined), or allowing logging operations to go ahead, without the possibility of leasing the land afterwards. The discounted values of a 7%year lease on the land and of logging royalties were calculated and presented to the landowners.* They decided that a land lease agreement satisfied their financial expectations and agreed to offer their land for lease to the Government of Vanuatu at the rate of 100 vatu/ ha/year.’ This rate will be revised in accordance with any increases in lease payments for unimproved agricultural land on Erromango decided by the Department of Lands. The lease agreement (drafted together with the landowners, one of the two village chiefs, the representative of the youth and the representative of women) allows, within limits, the use for subsistence purposes of the EKPA. These activities will be regulated by the management committee of the EKPA. The structure of the management committee is such that the landowners will maintain their customary control over the EKPA.“’

(b) Protected areas in Malekula island The approach to the identification, assessment and establishment of PAS developed for Malekula island is designed to establish PAS that are consistent with local peoples’ needs and wants in relation to ecosystem conservation (Tacconi, 1997a). The individual PAS were identified and assessed through the process of participatory planning. Whether a PA should be established, its boundaries, the resource use rules to be applied and the term of the PA were defined through research carried out with the landowners and chiefs. First, we’ ’ held meetings with those landowners who had approached the Local Government Council (LGC), or the author, asking for assistance in establishing a PA, or have rights to areas that had been indicated as potential PAS by the LGC. We carried out a first round of visits to the areas proposed for conservation status in order to: introduce ourselves to the villagers; identify some of the owners of the areas identified by the LGC for protected status; and find out whether the landowners were interested in pursuing some form of conservation. At the beginning of the first meeting (for each PA), we stressed that the objective of our work was

2003

to help landowners assess their conservation needs and wants, if they were interested in doing so. At the beginning of these meetings, we noted that the LGC intended to establish PAS, and it had identified certain areas. We also mentioned that one objective of the visit was to assess with the landowners whether they were interested in protecting these areas, or other areas, and to find out what other conservation issues they needed to pursue. In presenting the second point, we made clear that we had no intention of imposing any decision on them and that the LGC did not have the power to do so. We emphasized that landowners would be helped in protecting their resources. if they needed and wanted to do so. In every area visited the response of the landowners to our visit appeared to be positive. Therefore, arrangements were made to carry out detailed work in their areas. During further visits to each of the areas, the assessment of conservation needs and ways of achieving these were carried out jointly by the landowners and ourselves through: group and individual meetings; analysis of topographic maps; analysis of livelihood sources and development aspirations and options; surveys of forest. agricultural and marine resources. The following issues were discussed before actually proceeding with the detailed assessment of local conservation needs: positive and negative aspects of logging operations, in relation to both ecological and socioeconomic impacts; meaning of the concept of resource conservation; and meaning of the concept of PA. The following major issues were addressed in group and individual meetings: - Should logging activities be allowed in the area, or part of the area (controlled by the landowners taking part in the meeting)‘? If yes, in which areas? - Should agricultural activities be carried out in any part of the area being considered? - Should water sources be protected? If yes. how? - Should specific forest resources and/or marine resources be collected for commercial and/or subsistence purposes? Should the use of some of these resources be banned‘? Should some of the resources. considered above, be left for the use of future generations? - Should a PA be established? What area should it include? What is the term of the PA? - Are the resources allocated to consumption sufficient for the population (current and future) living near to the area? Together with the landowners, we identified and assessed five areas (of which three comprise both forest and marine ecosystems). Detailed management plans for the PAS resulted from the assessment

WORLD

2004

DEVELOPMENT

process. The PAS may be described as multiple use areas. They comprise zones dedicated to the conservation of forest resources, zones where agricultural activities are allowed, zones dedicated to the conservation of marine resources. Specific rules apply to the use of the various resources found in the different zones. For example, they regulate the use of wood and non-timber forest products in forest conservation zones, the collection of shellfish and the protection of marine turtles in marine conservation zones. During the assessment process, landowners’ interest in conservation seemed to be motivated by two main factors: - they appeared to be interested in protecting the environment in its own right by expressing concern about the impact of logging activities; and they appeared to be interested in deriving longer term benefits from the environment than those arising from logging activities. Landowners’ decisions about resource management were also influenced by other landowners’ behavior. In more than one occasion, landowners asked about the decisions made by other landowners in relation to the establishment of PAS. On one occasion, a landowner decided to establish a PA following the example of a nearby community that had taken the initiative to establish a PA. In another case, landowners decided to expand the boundaries of a PA on the basis of the decision made by other landowners. In order to implement the participatory approach to conservation described above, an appropriate institutional structure was devised. Conservation legislation (a by-law) to be adopted by the LGC was drafted in collaboration with the Attorney General’s Office of the Government of Vanuatu.” The by-law is aimed at establishing PAS by strengthening traditional customary rights to resources. According to the by-law, the LGC may declare a PA upon the request of the landowners, who specify the boundaries, resource use rules (e.g., strict preservation, or multiple use PAS) and the term of the PA. The official declaration of the areas assessed in Malekula will take place when the bylaw is enforced.

8. DISCUSSION The paper has presented an ecological economic (ECE) approach, rooted in constructivist methodology, to forest and biodiversity conservation. This framework may be summarized as follows. - Ecosystem use patterns should be chosen on the basis of their sustainability and distributional aspects together with the efficiency aspects. - Systems of PAS should be established in order

to achieve, at least partially, minimal intergenerational equity. - Intragenerational equity requires the correction of the asymmetrical distribution of costs and benefits arising from the establishment of PAS. The institutional features relevant to the specific environmental-economic issues being analysed should be considered. - The decision-making process (i.e. the identification, assessment, establishment and management of PAS) should be participatory and action oriented. This ECE framework combines elements that are characteristic of the established ecological economics literature (e.g., sustainability, intergenerational distribution concerns) with elements proper of rural development literature (e.g., participatory assessment processes). These two fields are brought together on a basis of constructivist philosophy of social sciences. The case studies have shown how this framework may be operationalized. It was shown that the expression and reconciliation of a variety of behaviors and interests (e.g. self-interested - other-regarding) within and between individuals and communities is facilitated by the integration of participatory decisionmaking processes and more standard economic tools such as basic cost-benefit analysis. I argue that this framework is more suited to the implementation of a strategic approach to the conservation of forests and biodiversity than the neoclassical environmental economic (NEE) framework. The latter may prove useful in assessing resource allocation issues at the margin. This argument may be made clearer by summarizing how the ECE theoretical framework was applied to the two cases described above. In the work in Vanuatu, it was taken as a given that biodiversity is a critical attribute of renewable natural capital and that conserving biodiversity assists in protecting critical life support functions. Therefore, the establishment of a system of PAS in Vanuatu was seen as a measure needed to move toward sustainable resource use, and to achieve minimal intergenerational equity. As a result, the analysis of the specific areas in Erromango and Malekula, considered for conservation status, did not involve an economic analysis (such as cost-benefit analysis) aimed at answering the question whether the PAS should be established. Such a question would have been considered if the NEE approach was being adopted. The distributional aspects of the conservation initiatives were considered in the ECE analysis. In the case of Erromango, where the PA proposal was initiated by the government, particular attention was given to the compensation of the monetary benefits foregone by the landowners and to ensuring that their

2005

AN ECOLOGICAL ECONOMIC APPROACH TO CONSERVATION

subsistence activities could be carried out within the PA. Notice that if a NEE analysis had been carried out, and it had found that the PA should be established, then according to the potential Pareto improvement test no actual compensation would have been required. In Erromango, a simple application of cost-benefit analysis was used simply to inform the landowners about the financial value of the alternative options of logging and land leasing. This also helped the assessment of the appropriate level of compensation. Several institutional features were considered in the course of the application of the ECE framework. In Erromango, the structure of property and resource use rights were considered and informed the design of the land lease agreement and the compensation package, and the process of participatory decision making.13 A further institutional aspect of the work undertaken in Erromango relates to the proposal for the establishment of the Vanuatu Biodiversity Conservation Trust Fund. This initiative was itself informed by the analysis of the local institutions. In Malekula, institutional analysis involved the study of the local resource management institutions, the development of resource use rules applying to the proposed PAS, and the design of a provincial by-law aimed at supporting the local customary rights. The participation process during the work in Vanuatu involved landowners, national government departments, and provincial governments. In Erromango, the participation of the landowners was initially limited at involvement in the RRA, when the assessment of the need for government intervention was undertakenI Then, the landowners themselves decided whether they were interested in taking up the offer of a land lease agreement. Once a positive decision was made, they participated in the drafting on the lease agreement. In Malekula, the landowners were fully involved (and in one case initiated) in the identification of areas to be protected and the resource use rules to be applied. The provincial government of Malekula island was involved in proposing broad geographical areas to be considered for conservation and in developing the protected area by-law. The Department of Forests supported the work of the project with staff and resources and, once the project was concluded, it took over the task of carrying out conservation work by establishing a Conservation Unit. The adoption of constructivist methodology had important implications for the research process. The relativist ontology made the author aware of the need to understand and document the different perceptions of the natural environment held by the landowners and the government departments. The above process informed the application of a

dialectic methodology whose aim was to achieve consensus between the views and expectations of the landowners and those of government departments officers. Throughout the research process it was accepted that the research findings are influenced by the interaction between the parties to the process. For example, when the landowners asked our advice “whether it was good or bad to establish a PA or to go ahead with logging,” we sought to provide all the information available to us in a balanced way. Had we tried to apply a positivist methodology, we would have simply sought landowners’ views and values (possibly just through a questionnaire survey), and would have avoided answering their questions so that we did not affect the research output (by biasing the sample data). In relation to the methodology, the continued interaction between us and the landowners had two beneficial effects. First, it improved their knowledge about conservation and logging issues. Thus, in the case of Erromango, their decision to accept the land lease agreement was based on an information set richer than the one they had at the beginning of the research process. Second, it helped us in improving our understanding of landowners’ needs and wants by discussing with them our views and thoughts. Had we carried out questionnaire surveys proper of the positivist approach, typical of a NEE approach, these useful (and pleasant) interactions would have not eventuated. It is also important to stress that these interactions are essential in building reciprocal trust, which is a fundamental element in achieving (relative) consensus, an important factor contributing to the solution of environmental problems.

9. CONCLUDING

COMMENTS

In relation to the policy implications of the applied analysis, the approaches to PA identification, assessment and establishment adopted in Malekula and Erromango have their place in a national approach to conservation. The first step toward the implementation of a system of PAS may be carried out by establishing PAS through a process of participatory land use planning. This process may lead to the establishment of PAS that are consistent with local peoples’ needs and wants in relation to ecosystem conservation. The PAS thus established are to be regarded as the first component of a complete PA system. Once these PAS are established, the next step should be a “biodiversity conservation gap” assessment. That study should identify the ecosystems that should be granted protected status on the basis of ecological criteria. but that have not been covered by the PAS

2006

WORLD DEVELOPMENT

established in the first phase. If gaps exist, these should be filled by establishing other PAS. If the establishment of these latter areas conflicts with landowners’ interests, this process could then follow the approach adopted for the establishment of the Erromango Kauri Protected Area. That is, compensation should be provided to the parties that have been made worse off by the establishment of a PA. It is not claimed that the whole framework presented here is transferable to any country or situation. Subscribing to constructivist philosophy

rules out such a claim. Two issues regarding transferability may be noted. First, the whole framework may be transferable to those situations that present similarities to the Vanuatu case studies, as it is the case at least for the other Melanesian countries with important forest resources: Papua New Guinea - that is one of the mega-diverse countries (Sekhran and Miller, 1995) - and the Solomon Islands. Second, the five theoretical principles of the framework summarized above are more widely transferable.

NOTES 1.

Vanuatu is a country in the South Pacific.

2. Opschor (1994) describes “modem evolutionary economics” as a hybrid of neoclassical econimics and neo-Austrian economics. Then, according to this definition of modem evolutionary economics, it follows that ECE must also draw to some extent on neoclassical economics. 3. The deviation between individual values and soietal values may be explained by the fact that society has a longer life expectancy than individuals (Opschor, 1994). 4. In Figure 1, the human behavioral space of NEE is mainly confined to vertex B. Models such as that of Margolis (1982) may be located at intermediate points along the segment BC. 5. A critical review of land use planning may be found in Dalal-Clayton and Dent (1993). Land use planning in relation to forest management is considered, for example, by Wong (1992) and the Australian Branch of the Commonwealth Forestry Association (ABCFA, 1993). The concept of Bioregonal Management has emerged in recent years. It refers to land use planning processes that have a specific focus on biodiversity conservation (Miller, 1996). 6. Natural capital may be subdivided into renewable natural capital and non-renewable natural capital. Renew-

able capital is self-sustained photosynthesis. Non-renewable resources such as minerals.

through natural

the process of capital includes

7. The learning approach “presumes that neither the ends nor the means of social interventions can be fully known in advance, and that understanding and consensus on them must be built through practical experience” (Uphoff, 1992, p. 12). Three different discounted values (based on 0.4% and 8. 8% discount rate) for the lease payments and for the timber royalties were calculated (Tacconi, 1995b; Tacconi and Bennett, 1995b). 9.

115 vatu = US$ 1.

The lease agreement 10. 1995.

ws officially

signed on May 1

11.

Mr Livo Mele, research

12.

A draft of the by-law is presented in Tacconi (1995b).

13. For more details about property rights and participation (1995b). 14.

assistant and the author.

the relationship between see Tacconi and Bennett

See Tacconi (1997b) for more details on this issue.

REFERENCES ABCFA (1993) Forestry in transition in Australia: from the primacy of wood production to ecologically sustainable development. Commonwealth Forestry Review 72(4), 321-337. Caldwell, B. (1982)Beyond Positivism: Economic Methodology in the Twentieth Century. George Allen & Unwin, London. Chambers, R. (1994) The origins and practices of participatory rural appraisal. World Development 22(7), 953-969. Checkland, P. and Scholes, .I. (1990) Sofr System Methodology in Action. John Wiley & Sons, Chicester. Costanza, R., Daly, H. E. and Bartholomew, J. A. (1991) Goals, agenda, and policy recommendations for ecological economics. In Ecological Economics: The Science

and Management of Sustainability, ed. R. Costanza, pp. l-20. Columbia University Press, New York. Davis-Case, D. (1990) The Community’s Toolbox: The Ideas, Methods and Tools for Participatory Assessment, Monitoring and Evaluation in Community Forestry. FAO, Rome. Dalal-Clayton, B. and Dent, D. (1993) Surveys, plans and people: a review of land resource information and its use in developing countries. Environmental Planning Issues No 2. IIED, London. Etzioni, A. (1988) The Moral Dimension: Towards a New Economics. The Free Press, New York. Funtowicz, S. 0. and Ravetz, J. R. (1991) A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. In Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of

AN ECOLOGICAL

ECONOMIC

Sustainability, ed. R. Costanza, pp. 137-152. Columbia University Press, New York. Gandy, M. (1996) Crumbling land: the postmodernity debate and the analysis of environmental problems. Progress in Human Geography 20(l), 234. Guba, E. G. (1990) The alternative paradigm dialog. In The Paradigm Dialog, ed. E. G. Guba, pp. 17-27. Sage Publications. London. Hannigan, J. A. (1995) Environmenfal Sociology: A Social Constructionist Perspective. Routledge, London. Harvey, H. (1989) The Conditions of Postmodernity: An Inquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Blackwell, Oxford. Hodgson, G. M. (1988) Economics and Institutions: A Mantfesto for a Modem Institutional Economics. Polity Press, Cambridge. Jacobs, M. (1994) The limits to neoclassicism: towards an institutional environmental economics. In Social Theory and the Global Environment, ed. M. Redclift and T. Benton, pp. 67-9 I. Routledge, London. Jacobs, M. (1996) What is socio-ecological economics? The Ecological Economics Bulletin l(2), 14-16. Kuhn, T. S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications, London. Margolis, H. (1982) Selfishness, Altruism and Rationality: A Theory of Social Choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Marshall, C. (1990)Goodness criteria: Are they objective or judgement calls? In The Paradigm Dialog, ed. E. G. Guba. pp. 188197. Sage Publications, London. Maturana, H. R. and Varela, F. J. (1992) The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding, rev. edn. Shambhala, Boston. McCloskey. D. (1985) The Rhetoric of Economics. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. Midmore, P. (1996) Towards a postmodem agricultural economics. Journal of Agricultural Economics 47( 1), l17. Miller, K. R. (1996) Balancing the Scales: Guidelines for Increasing Biodiversity’s Chances Through Bioregional Management. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Norgaard, R. B. (1989) The case for methodological pluralism. Ecological Economics 1, 37-57. Norton. G. B. and Ulanowicz, R. E. (1992) Scale and biodiversity policy: A hierarchical approach. Ambio 21(3), 244-249. Oakley. P.. et al. (1991) Projects with People: The Practice of Participation in Rural Development. ILO, Geneva. Opschor, H. (1994) Sustainable Development and Paradigms in Economics. Research Memorandum 1994-30, Faculteit der Economische Wetenschappeu en Econometrie, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. Page, T. (1991) Sustainability and the problem of valuation. In Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of’ Sustainability, ed. R. Costanza, pp. 58-72. Columbia University Press, New York. Pratt. A. C. (1995) Putting critical realism at work: The practical implications for geographical research. Progress in Human Geography 19(l), 61-74. Pretty, J. N. (1995) Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development 23(8), 1247-1263.

APPROACH

TO CONSERVATION

2007

Sagoff, M. (1988) The Economy oj the Earth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Sahu, N. C. and Nayak, B. (1994) Niche diversification in environmental/ecological economics. Ecologtcal Economics ll( I ), 9-20. Scoones, 1. and Thompson, J. (1993) Beyond farmer first rural people’s knowledge, agricultural research and extention practice: towards a theoretical framework. Sustainable Agriculture Programme Research Series, l(l), pp I-20. BED, London. Sekhran, N. and Miller, S. (1995) Papua Nero Guinea Country Study on Biological Diversity; A Report to The United Nation Environment Programme. Department of Environment and Conservation, Port Moresby. Africa Centre for Resources and Environment, Nairobi. Smith, J. K. (lY90) Alternative research paradigms and the problem of criteria. In The Paradigm Dialog, ed. E. G. Guba, pp. 1677187. Sage Publications. London. Soderbaum. P. (1992) Neoclassical and institutional approaches to development and the environment. Ecological Economic.s 5, 127-144. Suppe, F. ed. ( 1974) The Structure of’ Scientific Theories. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Swaney, J. A. (1987) Element\ of a neoinstitutional environmental economics. Journal of’ Econornic~ Issues XXI(4). 1739-1779. Tacconi, L. (lY95a) Rethinking the economic analysis of forests: theory and practice. Fore.\t Ew/ogv and Management 73( l-3), 129-238. Tacconi. L. (1995b) The Process of Forest Conservation in Vanuatu: A Study in Ecological Economics. PhD dissertation. University College, The University of New South Wales, Canberra. Tacconi, L. (1997a) Property rights and participatory biodiversity conservation: lessons from Malekula island Vanuatu. Land U.se Policy 14(2). 151~161. Tacconi, L. ( 1Y97b) Participatory research and ecological economics for biodiversity conservation in Vanuatu. Participatory Learning and Action Notes. 28, 74-78. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. Tacconi, L. ~forthcoming) Scientific methodology for ecological economics. Ecological Economics. Tacconi, L. and Bennett, J. (1995a) Economic implications of intergenerational equity for biodivercity conservation. Ecological Economics 12(3), 209-224. Tacconi, L. and Bennett, J. (1995b) Biodiversity conservation: The process of economic assessment and establiahment of a protected area in Vanuatu. Drwhmment and Change 26( I), 89-l IO. UNEP (1995) Global Biodiversity Axwssment. United Nations Environment Programme. Nairobi. Uphoff, N. T. ( 1992) Learning from Gal Oytr: Possibilities for Particrpatory Development and Post-NeM,toniarl So(,ial Science. Cornell University Press. Ithaca. Vatn, A. and Bromley, D. W. (I 994) Choices without price\ without apologies. Journal of Environmental Economic\ and Management 26, 129-148. WCED (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford Umversity Press, Oxford. WCMC ( 1992) Global Biodiversity: Status of the Earth ‘.\ Living Resources. Chapman and Hall. London. Whyte, W. F. ed. (1991) Participatory Action Recrarch. Sage Publications, London.

2008

WORLD DEVELOPMENT

Woodhill, J. and RBling, N. (forthcoming) The second wing of the eagle: The human dimension in learning our way to more sustainable futures. In Sustainable Agriculture: Participation, Learning, and Action, ed. N. RGling and A. Wagemakers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Wong, T. M. (1992) Industrial forestry. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 13(l), 63-14. WRI, IUCN, UNEP (1992) Global Biodiver.yity Strategy: Guidelines for Action to Save, Study, and (ise Earth’s Wealth Sustainably and Equitably. WRI, IUCN, UNEP, Washington, DC.