Group 3

Question 1

Adams et al. (2004)

Answer 1

• Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty
• protected areas effective at species conservation, but often take away land usage opportunities and have negative effect on poverty
• MDG based upon combining poverty alleviation and conservation, doesn’t mean its plausible
• The links between biodiversity and livelihoods, and between conservation and poverty reduction, are dynamic and locally specific. In most cases, hard choices will be necessary between goals, with significant costs to one goal or the other

Question 2

Collins et al. (2011)

Answer 2

• Pleiotrophy and charisma undermines winners and losers in the REDD+ game
• pleiotrophically linked species (those most threatened by pure habitat loss) most likely to benefit from REDD+
• Charismatic species can generate funds on their own, non-charismatic non-pleiotrophic species need help

Question 3

Dickman et al. (2011)

Answer 3

• Paying for predators
• Payements to encourage coexistence (PEC), essentially payments for those negatively effected by HWC
• PEC approaches can be valuable in converting the benefits of carnivores from an abstract externality to a tangible reality for local people
• Need to outweigh local costs incurred

Question 4

Bumpus & Liverman (2008)

Answer 4

• Accumulation by decarbonation
• Kyoto allows developed countries to meet targets by buying offsets from developing countries
• Carbon offsets have to be environmentally additional ie. Reduce emissions from what they would have been in business as usual, hard to prove
• for a country to be in CDM has to be signatory of Kyoto

Question 5

Buscher et al. (2012)

Answer 5

• Towards a synthesized critique of neoliberal biodiversity conservation
• neoliberal view that in order for nature to be saved there has to be a profit attached to it
• capitalistic expansion obviously unsustainable, but neoliberalism’s views can incorporate saving nature as part of a capitalistic system
• trusting market forces to restore ecological equilibrium is short sighted and dangerous

Question 6

Kosoy and Corbera (2010)

Answer 6

• neoliberal valuation of ecosystems simplifies a complex system
• water flows and allows continuation of deforestation of old growth forests and their replacement
• what about non linearity and unpredictability of ecology - how will this affect shifts in price and value of ecosystems as well as shifts in ownership as they move spatially.

Question 7

McCarthy & Prudham (2004)

Answer 7

• Neoliberal nature
• Commonality between these: not the impulse for ‘safe or wise use’, but rather legitimization of a particular social order.
• Contrast: classical liberalism had rich debates on limits to growth, neoliberalism seems to have blind faith in technology instead.

Question 8

McLaughlin et al. (2001)

Answer 8

• Frames

- socially constructed categories for shared meaning

Question 9

Tarrow (1992)

Answer 9

-Frames are always partial and capture the understandings of particular groups

Question 10

Jepson et al. (2011)

Answer 10

• What is a conservation actor?

- ANT provides critical view that non-humans (animals, certification schemes) can be actors

Question 11

Gardner (2008)

Answer 11

• The cost effectiveness of biodiversity surveys
• Compare cost and benefits of monitoring high performance indicator taxa to better use scarce resources
• More business like approach to biodiversity monitoring

Question 12

Vera (2000)

Answer 12

-Wood-pasture hypothesis (Europe)

Question 13

Birks (2005)

Answer 13

• Can reject wood-pasture hyposthesis

- In favore of high forest hyptohesis

Question 14

Laurance et al. (2012)

Answer 14

• Leakage, intensifying land use around protected areas because of barring off those resources
• Found many factors worsening both inside and outside reserves
• Argues for more buffer zones and connectivity and benefitting local communities to reduce use