56 consumer good. These motives are not only essentially different in terms of objectives, but also in terms of the inherent obstacles they encounter. These obstacles concern, respectively, operationalization of objectives (heritage), the difficulty to manage nature like a machine (capital good) and the wide diversity of needs and preferences as well as in the degree of acceptance of nuisance and danger (consumer good). Each of these motives also appeals to different actors. This essay seeks to clarify this diversity, while also providing a basis for operationalization through ‘guidelines for action’. Problems are often broken down into such questions as Why? What? Who? and How? The ‘How’ question is barely addressed in this essay. The answers to the Why? What? Who? questions are set out in the table below: Motive Nature as Heritage Inherent problem Main problem: operationalization of the objectives, because • Counting species is not doable and pointless. • Current biodiversity definitions are flawed. • If you focus the ‘solution’ on conditions instead of species (habitat preservation and, where impossible, promotion of natural processes), the above problems partly recur. Actors Conclusion: (1) Impossible to define absolute objectives. Progressive insight can cause objectives to change. ‘Best efforts’ commitment rather than results obligation. (2) ‘Ecological footprint’ interesting point of reference. Problem here is restriction of consumer freedom. Consumer behaviour notoriously difficult to influence (think of: car driving, meat consumption). Nature as Capital good Main problem: unreliability of nature, because • Nature is more difficult to control than man-made capital goods. Beside that, the exact working of natural processes is still by no means fully understood. • Nature is capricious and to a certain extent unpredictable. Conclusion: There is a broad range of potential benefits, but these must constantly be weighed against the economic costs. This calls for decentralized decisionmaking, scope for experimentation and innovation (e.g. among farmers). Nature as Consumer good Main problem: matching supply and demand, because • Nature is a common good, people’s needs and preferences vary widely and, in some cases, are very changeable (fashions, fads and crazes). There is also a great variety in the acceptance of the disadvantages and dangers that are inevitably associated with proximity to nature. • The market, which usually copes efficiently with such a variety of needs and preferences, fails with common goods. • Government lacks the knowledge to precisely meet this diversity of needs. Conclusion: Other collective groups, the existing infrastructure of nature and environmental organizations or new spontaneous civic initiatives could play a role here. One problem is the absence of democratic legitimacy (which governments do have). Another remaining problem is avoiding free rider behaviour, i.e. ensuring that the consumer pays whoever incurs the costs. International institutions (IUCN, WHO, EU, UN, FAO, etc.). International conferences and treaties. National government (pivotal role between above- and below- mentioned levels). Nature management organizations (incl. private parties and decentralized authorities). Business sector, with a central role for farms. Government (national and local) must only play a stimulating and facilitating role, except when acting as entrepreneur or direct contract-awarding authority (e.g. with infrastructure works) Self-organizing citizens / consumers. Municipalities, district councils, neighbourhood committees. Existing infrastructure of nature and environmental organizations. Pagina 63
Pagina 1Heeft u een club blad, onlinepublisher of online onderwijs magazines? Gebruik Online Touch: rapport converteren naar een digitale publicatie.
538 Lees publicatie 209Home