wise use of mires and peatlands - Peatland Ecology Research Group

GUIDE TO THE USE OF THE DOCUMENT15benefiting or suffering from decisions, arewell informed.Different priorities with respect to values:These conflicts are essentially those betweenthe wants and needs of the present and thoseof the future. The present generation hasduties to future generations, but there aredifferent opinions as to the extent of theseduties. Certain approaches can be helpful insuch conflicts, including: utility or financialdiscounting of future benefits to give them apresent value; distinguishing between whatare normal or non-essential functions andwhat are vital; having a balanced approachto risk and uncertainty; and the use in certaincircumstances of monetarisation (attributionof monetary value to non-material functions).An example of such a conflict would be theneed for agricultural land to feed landlesspeasants in Indonesia versus the long-termenvironmental and climatic benefits of tropicalpeatland forests. In such cases it is possibleto establish a discount ‘value’ for bothintervening and not intervening; both theneed for food and the environmental andclimate functions of the peatland are vital;the risk of the intervention failing and therisk to the future peatland functions even ifthe intervention succeeds can be estimated.These sorts of cases also lend themselves tocost-benefit analysis; there is generalexperience (see Chapter 3) that agriculture onpeatlands can be marginal, and cost-benefitanalysis would estimate the total real costsagainst the total real expected gains.Different positions on which entities haveintrinsic moral value: This document isbased on the premise that only human beingshave intrinsic moral value (an anthropocentricview). However, some people attributeintrinsic value to some other beings (forexample, sentient beings) while othersattribute intrinsic value also to species,ecosystems, even the biosphere (differentnon-anthropocentric views). The right ofpeople to live according to their own valuesystems means that all such points of viewshould be respected, and should beapproached through moral pluralism.Anthropocentrists attribute worth to miresand peatlands for their instrumental values(what they can do for mankind). Nonanthropocentristsoften value them forthemselves.This can be a fundamental issue in peatlandconflicts. If the reason why people disagreein a peatland conflict arises fromfundamentally different world-views it isimportant to establish this fact and deal withit. What many appear to be a conflict betweenprecedents (one considers conservation moreimportant than exploitation) may in reality bea conflict between one who attributes intrinsicvalue to a mire or a species and one who doesnot.FrameworkIn general in dealing with peatland conflictsan approach based on moral pluralism isrelevant - different considerations apply indifferent cases.The framework in this document can besummarised in a series of questions whichcould be posed in relation to any proposedintervention in a peatland (an ‘intervention’would include e.g., a proposal to preserve).While the word ‘conflict’ is used it is notalways intended in the sense of disagreementor controversy - it may also refer to differentoptions or choices available in a particularcircumstance.●●Are all decision makers and participants inthe conflict or choice (“those concerned”)using terms with the same meaning, andhave they a basic knowledge of mires andpeatlands and their characteristics, extentand functions.Do those concerned understand the natureand categories of values and why peoplehave different positions with respect tovalues.