wise use of mires and peatlands - Peatland Ecology Research Group

GUIDE TO THE USE OF THE DOCUMENT13All of the filters to be used in coming to adecision on a proposed intervention aresummarised in checklists, which in turn canbe used as a basis for codes of conduct.In considering the sequence of filters outlinedin the framework it is again recalled thatparticipants in any conflict will includepersons who do not accept ananthropocentric point of view, who believethat entities other than human beings haveintrinsic value.In conclusion, the importance of dialogue andof seeking to understand the other person’spoint of view is paramount. Imbued with sucha frame of mind the proposed framework willprovide decision-makers with a basis fordeciding between different options.2. GUIDE TO THE FRAMEWORKFOR DECISION-MAKINGBy talking of ‘Wise Use’ we implicitly acceptthat there are conflicts between what is wiseand unwise. Conflicts can relate to differentappreciation of facts or to different choices.Conflicts dealing with factsThese conflicts can be divided between thosebased on different understandings or thosebased on different judgements.Different understandings: The first of thesearise from different understandings of terms.Chapter 2 gives definitions of terms used inthis document. This does not mean that thesedefinitions are the only possible ones but itdoes emphasise the need for a clearunderstanding in all cases of what peoplemean by particular terms. Conflicts can arisefor example, from different understandings ofwhat the word ‘peatland’ means - some use itto mean wetlands with the potential toaccumulate peat, others to describe areas witha minimal thickness of peat.A second form of conflict betweenunderstandings can arise from different levelsof knowledge. We have thus included inChapter 2 and in the second part of Chapter 3an outline of the relevant state-of-the artknowledge on mires and peatlands, theirtypes, extent, characteristics and functions.For those who want further information awide range of references is given.Conflicts arising from different judgementsof which means will best achieve a given end.For example a community in an area withmany peatlands might agree that their aim wasto maximise financial benefit to thecommunity. Some might believe that the bestmeans was to drain the mires for agricultureand forestry. Others might believe that itwould be better to preserve the peatlands anddevelop scientific, educational andenvironmental tourism. This sort ofdifference of opinion as to the best means toan end can best be solved by information.Examples of the elements which could assistin making a decision include– cost-benefit analysis (as in Chapter 5) ofthe two options;– the use of both utility and financialdiscounting (Chapter 4);– comparative information based onmonetarisation (Chapter 4);– general considerations such as thatbenefits accrue widely and not just to afew, and– guidance principles - such as involvingpublic participation (Chapter 5).A similar sort of conflict could arise fromdisagreement on the best management optionfor a peatland to reduce the greenhouse effect.Faced with a drained peatland some mightargue for a carbon sink arising from reflooding,others for a sink based on plantinga forest. Comparative studies can be carriedout, as illustrated in Chapter 3 and Appendix1.