Why should ecosystem services be used for poverty alleviation? Establishing the ethical foundations of ESPA. (Short title: WhyESPA)

This proposal outlines research asking a fundamental question: why should ecosystem services be used for poverty alleviation? It is a fundamental question because, in the presence of ecological and social trade-offs, ecosystem services (ES) do not automatically benefit poor people, but have been demonstrated to accrue to better-off and more powerful actors (Ronnback et al., 2007; Daw et al., 2011). It is also a timely question, not only because many environmental interventions continue to take place in settings characterised by entrenched poverty but also because demand for ES from non-poor and spatially distant actors is predicted to rise in coming decades (Meyfroidt et al., 2013). It is a particularly timely question for the conservation community, with whom we will work, because of active debates about the 'new conservation' and the ethical principles underpinning conservation practice (Lalasz et al., 2011; Soule, 2013). While a growing body of ESPA research now exists, none has comprehensively considered the ethical foundations of the ESPA proposition. This proposal is designed to address this gap and influence the terms of debate on environmental management in this decade and beyond, by harnessing contemporary debates in conservation. It comprises three bodies of work addressing the question of why ES should be used for poverty alleviation (PA): 1) Through empirical work, we seek to understand how conservation practitioners in the global north and south rationalise whether and why ES should be governed for PA; 2) Through novel theoretical work, we identify theories in political philosophy and environmental ethics underpinning the proposition that ES should be governed for the poor; 3) in a Think Tank event with practitioners, we co-produce knowledge about the ethical underpinnings of governing ES for PA.
The transnational conservation sector provides an appropriate focus for this research because conservation is a deeply ethical undertaking, having concerns for the common good, non-human nature and the prospects of future generations at its core. The strength of disagreement in debates about the 'new conservation' signifies the underlying ethical concerns and the importance attributed to decisions over trade-offs. From an ethical perspective, the most critical trade-offs can be characterised as: a) human wellbeing vs. non-human nature, b) current vs. future generations and c) the poor vs. the greater good of all humans. It is around these trade-offs that both the empirical and the theoretical work will be situated.
We focus upon conservation NGOs for two reasons. Firstly, they form the vanguard of international thinking about conservation (Adams, 2004), and their influence is significant because of their transnational reach. Secondly, our previous work indicates that ES concepts have important implications in the conservation sector, in particular allowing some conservation organisations to renew rationales for prioritising poorer people as beneficiaries of conservation (Fisher and Brown, submitted). These indications, combined with fresh debates about the 'new conservation', may signify the emergence of a hybrid conservation ethic combining concern for humans and ecosystems, related somehow to the concept of ES. Therefore, it is timely to investigate these phenomena empirically in the conservation sector.
We hypothesise that turning attention to ethical concerns might serve to resolve ES tradeoffs, through the identification of an explicit and defensible case, from practitioners and supported by theory, of why the poorest should take priority. Making this case has the potential to be transformational, as the reality is that in many instances, the poor and poorest cannot maintain access to ES, particularly when governance changes. Hence, the research we propose has the potential to provide a step-change in how poverty and the governance of ES are conceptualised, and in turn, how related trade-offs may be resolved.

Overview
The proposed research will achieve development impact by identifying a robust theoretical, and practitioner-led case for why conservation might promote the governance of ES for the poor. We will capitalize upon the emerging 'new conservation' debates, which are fundamentally about the ethical foundations of conservation. We will achieve impact by generating theoretical insights on the ethical principles underpinning the relationship between poverty and ES, and also by facilitating a conversation amongst members of the transnational conservation community about the ethical foundations of conservation's interaction with the global poor. We contend that the empirical approach to justice we have promoted has the potential to provide a step-change in how poverty and the governance of ES are conceptualized, and in turn, how related tradeoffs may be resolved. We anticipate that this work will help the ESPA global forum, and the conservation community, to articulate a more reasoned (theoretically-justified), hence more robust, case regarding why the poor should benefit from ES. Through a programme of impact activities, we will coproduce and share widely findings with these communities.

Beneficiaries
Ultimate beneficiaries: poor people in LICs will benefit from ES-based interventions that serve conservation and poverty alleviation simultaneously.
We reach the ultimate beneficiaries through the following intermediaries:
Conservation practitioners in UK and US working in organisations operating transnationally, in areas where biodiversity and poverty coincide. Changes in their practice as a result of this research will have direct impacts in LICs.
Conservation practitioners in Bolivia, China, Nepal and Uganda where our research partners facilitate direct access to national conservation networks. Uganda and Nepal are World Bank defined LICs, and China's rapid development masks a significant poor rural population, while Bolivia's rural poverty is also extensive. Our interactions will facilitate the inclusion of southern perspectives in the emergent global debate on ethical foundations of conservation.

Pathways to impact
Our impact will be developed through the following linked pathways:
1. Impact through changing the frame of debates about ESPA. We seek to change the debates about ESPA issues by identifying an explicit and defensible ethical case, from practitioners and supported by theory, about why ES management should prioritise the poorest. We anticipate that this will have far-reaching implications in the next decade, and beyond, through a diffuse pathway in which the ideas of policy-makers and practitioners shift. This pathway will be secured through effective communication with practitioner communities such as those associated with our partners Fauna and Flora International (FFI) and the Conservation Initiative on Human Rights (CIHR).
2. Dissemination of preliminary findings at International Conference on Conservation Biology. ICCB is the biannual meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology. It presents the chance to highlight our conceptual approach and preliminary findings amongst academic and practitioner audiences.
3. The third pathway consists of a Think Tank to be co-organized by UoE and UEA together with FFI, the UK's longest established conservation organization. The think tank draws from our expertise in these events and involves a novel form of engagement between researchers and practitioners to co-produce knowledge pertaining to why poor people should benefit from ES. One aspect of the event will be the co-writing of a think piece for internet circulation.
4. Through the think tank event, we will invite practitioners to contribute to the 'testimonies of justice' series of videos on the UEA/DEV youtube channel. Hosting these on the UEA platform will also allow us to leverage the existing interest in these videos, which have together generated thousands of views in a year.