Governing (with) ecosystem services: Changing Problematisations and Rationalities of Governing in German Nature and Landscape Policies
Final Report Abstract
‘Ecosystem services’ (ESS) has become a key term of the international, the European and increasingly also the German debates on nature conservation and landscape management. It has been regarded by some as an indicator of a programmatic reorientation of biodiversity policies in an economic vein. It had hardly been studied hitherto how governing in the policy area ‘nature conservation and landscape management’ is changing in Germany with the increased use of the term ‘ecosystem services’. For instance, it was unclear whether an economisation or neoliberalisation of nature and landscape occurs, that is, an expansion of the application of economic and market-based principles, as is often described at the international level, or whether counteracting forces would prevail that end up reinforcing the well-established relationship of governmental regulation, civil society involvement and market forces. The aim of the project was to study ESS discourses in Germany from the perspective of governmentality research. It was to be analysed how nature conservation and landscape management are debated in connection with the economically influenced ESS concept. The focus was on the problematisations and rationalities of governing in the policy area ‘nature conservation and landscape management’. A quantitative analysis of the headlines of contributions which were published in the past 35 years in the two leading German conservation journals has shown that supposedly economic approaches such as the ESS concept were used with increasing frequency, yet largely in isolation from other economic terms. Hence, a state-centred understanding of nature conservation, relying on science and bureaucracy, still prevails over economic approaches. An in-depth analysis of key documents which were published in relation to the political initiative “Natural Capital Germany – TEEB DE” shows that TEEB-DE clearly produces a neoliberal take on the objects and problems of policy-making in the field of nature conservation. By contrast, a striking heterogeneity of rationalities can be found when it comes to aims, strategies and instruments. Regarding a potential future science-policy interface in this field, the thematic focus ought to be broadened, scientific evidence should be separated more clearly from political demands and conflicting views could be made more transparent. Against the background of increasingly pressing social-ecological transformations, conservation actors – including NGOs – should refrain from reproducing and stabilising utilitarian rationalities by referring to concepts such as ESS. Conservation should be conceived of as a dissident practice, which also offers emotionally attractive alternative to (over-)using Nature. Relying on an attitude of care and respect for the Other, nature conservation could become a driving force of a transformation that alters not just the way we deal with nature, but also with each other.
Publications
- (2017), Ecosystem services and neoliberal governmentality – German style. Land Use Policy, 64, 307-316
Leibenath, M.
(See online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.02.037) - (2018), The Ecosystem Services Concept and its relation to national biodiversity policies: The case of ‘Natural Capital Germany – TEEB DE’. In: Berger, L. (Hrsg.), Marine Ecosystem Services (= BfN-Skripten 521) (101-112). Bonn: BfN
Leibenath, M.
(See online at https://doi.org/10.19217/skr521) - (2018), Ökosystemleistungen und die Neoliberalisierung des Naturschutzes: Untersucht am Beispiel von ‚Naturkapital Deutschland – TEEB DE’. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung, 50, 2, 51-56
Leibenath, M.
- (2019), Jenseits von Konsensfiktion und Vereinnahmung. Zur Neubestimmung des Ortes umweltsoziologischer Kritik am Beispiel von „Naturkapital Deutschland – TEEB DE“. In: Burzan, N. (Hrsg.), Komplexe Dynamiken globaler und lokaler Entwicklungen. Verhandlungen des 39. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in Göttingen 2018
Kurth, M.
- (2019), Zur Befragung der Umweltforschung an der Schnittstelle von Wissenschaft und Politik – Theorie und Methodik der postfundamentalistischen Diskursanalyse am Beispiel von „Naturkapital Deutschland – TEEB DE“. In: Sattlegger, L., Deppisch, L. & Rudolfi, M. (Hrsg.), Methoden umweltsoziologischer Forschung. Tagungsband der 15. Tagung der Nachwuchsgruppe Umweltsoziologie. ISOE-Materialien Soziale Ökologie (92-101). Frankfurt a. M.: ISOE
Kurth, M.
- (2020), Science–policy interfaces related to biodiversity and nature conservation: The case of Natural Capital Germany—TEEB-DE. Sustainability, 12, 9, 3701
Leibenath, M., Kurth, M. & Lintz, G.
(See online at https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093701) - (2021), Naturschutz in Zeiten sozial-ökologischer Transformationen: Triebkraft oder Getriebener? GAIA, 30, 3, 144-149
Leibenath, M., Eser, U., Katz, C., Kurth, M., Ober, S., Poblocki, A. & Wessel, M. J. K.
(See online at https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.30.3.3) - (2021), Naturschutz und (Grüne) Ökonomie: das Beispiel der Kontroverse um die geplante Tesla-Ansiedlung in Brandenburg. Natur und Landschaft, 96, 6, 293-299
Leibenath, M. & Kurth, M.
(See online at https://doi.org/10.17433/6.2021.50153917.293-299) - (2021), Themenkonjunkturen, Naturschutzverständnisse und der Stellenwert ökonomischer Themen in wissenschaftlichen Veröffentlichungen mit Naturschutzbezug in Deutschland: Eine quantitative Zeitreihenanalyse von 1985 bis 2019. Natur und Landschaft, 96, 12, 579-589
Kurth, M. & Leibenath, M.
- (2022), Mehr Sichtbarkeit für die Leistungen der Natur durch ökonomische Zusatzargumente? Diskursanalytische Anmerkungen zur Studie Naturkapital Deutschland – TEEB DE. In: Bosančić, S. & Keller, R. (Hrsg.), Diskurse, Dispositive und Subjektivitäten. Anwendungsfelder und Anschlussmöglichkeiten in der wissenssoziologischen Diskursforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS
Kurth, M. & Leibenath, M.
(See online at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31557-3)
