Distributing the Benefits of Nature's Bounty: A Social Justice Perspective

775 views

Published on

Note: contains a number of hyperlinks, so viewers may have some difficulty following the presentation.

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
775
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Distributing the Benefits of Nature's Bounty: A Social Justice Perspective

  1. 1. Distributing Benefits: A Timeless Challenge Services and raw materials from natural heritage scarce Prone to shifts in social and cultural norms Common pool resources require some special attention Lots of issues
  2. 2. Why Benefit Distribution is Challenging Global debate about conservation Growing population with changing consumption patterns Global level processes stress natural heritage Political and moral ideologies in flux Knowledge is expanding
  3. 3. Community Level Access is important for vulnerable populations Dependency on access to natural resources
  4. 4. Access to Nature’s Bounty It is a matter of justice or fair treatment
  5. 5. Framing the Challenge Framing natural resource problems is difficult Wicked and messy character  Scientific disagreement on cause-effect relationships  Lack of social agreement on goals Inter-connected problems  Can’t solve one problem without affecting others  Don’t solve problems, but resolve them
  6. 6. Benefit Sharing and Benefit Distribution: Different Decisions, Similar Questions Literature often unclear Convention on Biological Diversity unclear on what it means Moral approach sees sharing as an act of beneficence Policy arena sees sharing as a non-voluntary act
  7. 7. How terms will be used in this presentation Benefit sharing – A fair exchange of value between a willing seller (collective) and willing buyer Benefit distribution – apportionment of benefits received by a collective to members of that collective
  8. 8. Social Justice Framing Social justice – objective is the basic structure of society … way in which major social institutions distribute fundamental rights and duties … – Rawls 1971 Institutions lose their legitimacy when decisions are not just in the eyes of citizens and residents
  9. 9. Three Types of Justice Underpin Benefit Sharing and Distribution Commutative – fair exchange of value Distributive – apportionment of benefits and burdens Procedural – the rules by which society makes decisions
  10. 10. Commutative Justice Seeking a fair exchange – trades of equivalent value The heart of benefit sharing Implemented through  Prior informed consent  Mutually agreed terms  Policy
  11. 11. Distributive Justice How benefits and burdens are apportioned to members of a collective The focus of benefit distribution Implemented through policy decisions Goal is fairness But what is fair?
  12. 12. Procedural Justice The rules by which society makes decisions Underlies both distributive and commutative justice Implemented through good governance principles, e.g.  Transparency  Inclusiveness  Responsibility  Accountability
  13. 13. Commutative Distributive Justice Justice Procedural Justice
  14. 14. Major Benefit Distribution Decisions1. Current members or future members2. Community or individual (household) scale3. Goals of distribution4. Capacity to make decisions
  15. 15. 1. Benefits distributed to current or future members Provision of opportunities An issue of intergenerational equity
  16. 16. 2. Community or individual scale Community scale – basic services needed by all members  Clinic, school, library, police, fire Individual scale – individuals decide what to do with benefits  Raise income  People spend income on their sense of need
  17. 17. 3. Determining Distributive Justice Goals Equality – every member receives the same apportionment  Treats everyone the same regardless of circumstances
  18. 18. 3. Determining Distributive Justice Goals Equity – benefits apportioned according to merit or some other measure  Favors those who engage collective activities or who hold promise for improving collective quality of life
  19. 19. 3. Determining Distributive Justice Goals Need – benefits apportioned to those most vulnerable  Poor  Sick  Dependency
  20. 20. 4. What Governance Capacities are Needed Decision making – identifying who should get what amount from whom  Focus on procedural justice  Understanding consequences  Explicitness in policy development Administration – good business practices  Accounting  Paper trails  Audits
  21. 21. Lessons Learned Ambiguous definitions of benefit sharing and distribution stifle research and thwart effective social discourse, creating confusion and conflict
  22. 22. Lessons Learned Any benefit distribution mechanism will discriminate against some group  What is fair?
  23. 23. Lessons Learned What is “fair” is highly situational specific, often contested, and depends on the interest dominating discourse
  24. 24. Lessons Learned Building capacity to negotiate is critical to creating opportunities for commutative justice.
  25. 25. Lessons Learned Building capacity to decide is critical to distributive justice
  26. 26. Lessons Learned How benefits are created remains an important question for science and policy and needs debate for progress to be made
  27. 27. Conclusions Benefit distribution occurs within a complex social-ecological system defying simplistic solutions Research can help policy understand choices and consequences Using a social justice perspective clarifies goals and processes used in benefit distribution policy
  28. 28. Thanks to:Wayne Freimund, UM Bimo Nkhata, MonashPatrick Graz, Polytechnic Karine Nuulimba, IRDNCSelma Lendelvo, UNAM Oliver Pierson, MCCMaxi Louis, NACSO Tyron Venn, UMAlfons Mosimane, UNAM Chris Weaver WWF-Namibia
  29. 29. Convention on Biological Diversity Third objective: “the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources …” Bonn Guidelines Nagoya Protocol Requires that “benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources … shall be shared in a fair and equitable way with the Party providing such resources …”
  30. 30. Definition Goal Benefit Shared CitationCharitable Care for Human Aid, TechnicalGiving Beings AssistanceFair Exchange Commutative Justice Money, Artuso 2002of Value Technology, Moran 2000 Training, Schroeder 2007 KnowledgeMitigation Payment for Costs Money Mogera and Incurred by Local Tsioumani 2010 Residents Baldus, et al. 2003Incentive Encourage Money, Meat Johannesen and Conservation Practice Skonhoft 2005Compensation Restitution for Past Money, Shared Magome 2003 Injustice Decision Making Kepe et al. 2005 IUCN 2003
  31. 31. Benefit SharingRaw material may be a plant product, mineral, energy orecosystem-based service
  32. 32. Benefit Distribution
  33. 33. Natural Saleable Heritage Raw Material Product Revenues to Buy-Sell Collective AgreementInvestment in Distribution of CollectiveConservation Revenues Members Administration

×