Geoforum 43 (2012) 1035–1044

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Geoforum
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

Negotiating neoliberalism: Conservationists’ role in the development of payments

for ecosystem services
Sophie Wynne-Jones
Wales Rural Observatory, Institute of Geography and Earth Sciences, Aberystwyth University, Ceredigion SY23 3DB, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper critically engages with the role of conservation practitioners as ‘expert intermediaries’ in the
Received 17 May 2011 development of payments for ecosystem services (PES) schemes in the UK. Centring on the case study of
Received in revised form 19 July 2012 the Wildlife Trust’s Pumlumon Project in Mid Wales, the paper connects the advance of neoliberal gov-
Available online 6 October 2012
ernance strategies to the experiences and attitudes of conservationists, charting a more personalised
geography of how PES has gained traction here, beyond its dissemination as an anonymous discourse
Keywords: or top-down imposition. In methodological terms, the paper combines ethnography with the insights
Payments for ecosystem services
of governmentality in order to demonstrate how conservationists have made sense of, and subsequently
Neoliberal governmentality
Subjectivity
engaged with processes of neoliberalisation. This is set out as a means to attain a grounded perspective
Expert intermediaries on the advancement of PES, but equally to appreciate how the hegemony of market-style governance is
Conservation accepted and advanced by the conservationists involved.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction But in our current juncture of ‘neoliberal crises’, there is also an

increasing need to evaluate how neoliberal hegemony is being
In recent years ‘Payments for Ecosystem Services’ (PES) have be- maintained, in the face of mounting evidence against the benefits
come increasingly prominent within western environmental dis- of free-market initiatives and heated arguments within the envi-
course (Daily and Ellison, 2002; Heal, 2000), with a plethora of ronmental sector surrounding the problems of economic valuation
schemes now evident across the globe (Farley and Costanza, (e.g. Spash, 2011; Sullivan, 2006). It is this latter aim that this pa-
2010; Muradian et al., 2010; TEEB, 2010; UNEP/IUCN, 2007), per works towards, by unpacking the advance of neoliberal sensi-
responding to the imperative for economic valuation set out by bilities within a nascent PES scheme in the UK, the Wildlife
Robert Costanza et al. (1997) and the Millennium Ecosystem Trust’s Pumlumon Project; evaluating the logics evident in the
Assessment (2005). The development of this approach can be scheme’s design, and tying them to the understandings and prefer-
traced to the advocacy of neoclassical economists aiming to resolve ences of practitioners in the field. In this manner, I set out how the
the problem of environmental externalisation within conventional need for economic valuation and market-style regulation has
processes of production and exchange (Coase, 1960; Gomez- gained popularity at a grassroots level, exploring individuals’ con-
Baggethun et al., 2010). But, equally, the need to put a price on struction and negotiation of neoliberal ideals which challenge the
‘nature’ has been connected to the ideological goals of wider notion of simple top-down transfer.
neoliberal policy programmes (McCarthy and Prudham, 2004; As such, the paper connects the analysis of PES with a wider
Redford and Adams, 2009; Spash, 2008). agenda tracing the emergence of neoliberal ideals through
In these terms, PES are increasingly being addressed by scholars different states, networks, and people (England and Ward, 2007;
investigating neoliberal approaches to conservation (Brockington Larner, 2003). In particular, the paper follows Larner and Le
and Duffy, 2010; Fletcher, 2010; Igoe and Brockingham, 2007; Heron’s (2002a) argument that analyses focused solely upon offi-
King, 2009; Kosoy and Corbera, 2010) and ‘neoliberal natures’ cial policy and ‘elite’ knowledges can suggest a top-down reading
more broadly (Bakker, 2009; Castree, 2008; Heynan et al., 2007; of neoliberal hegemony, sidelining the role of wider publics and
Robertson, 2004). Here, a primary objective has been to evaluate intermediaries, and the social and subjective processes of
the extent and varying outcomes of nature’s neoliberalisation, to negotiation involved. Here, whilst I do not deny the influence of
gain critical purchase on the contextual variations and inequalities Welsh Government policy reforms and wider political pressures
emerging through these formations, so challenging the ideals of (Wynne-Jones, forthcoming), the focus of my analysis is on the
neoliberal theorists. agency of a specific group of individuals, who fall within Larner
and Laurie’s (2010) description of ‘middling technocrats’, or
E-mail address: [email protected] ‘expert intermediaries’.

0016-7185/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.07.008
1036 S. Wynne-Jones / Geoforum 43 (2012) 1035–1044

Specifically, a combination of ethnography with the insights of reminded that the study of PES is not only relevant to political-
governmentality (following Larner, 2000; Li, 2007), are applied ecologists and scholars of neoliberal nature, but also intersects
here to explore how such sensibilities have become sedimented with the wider theorisation of contemporary capitalism and
within conservationists’ everyday and embedded knowledges. In associated social formations (Arsel and Büscher, 2012; Büscher
these terms, the paper unravels how neoliberal ideals have been and Arsel, 2012; McCarthy, 2012; McCarthy and Prudham, 2004;
transmitted and gained acceptability amongst conservationists Robertson, 2012).
who have played a leading role in the wider dissemination and To develop this analysis I have adopted insights from govern-
development of these governance models. As such, we gain a mentality to ground otherwise abstract notions of hegemony
clearer picture of how the PES discourse has advanced within the (Larner, 2000), by focusing on the way governable subjects are cre-
everyday geographies of these influential individuals. ated through the formation and deployment of specific forms of
In terms of the paper’s structure, Section 1 outlines my theoret- knowledge and expertise. As such, individuals’ understandings of
ical framework and methodology. Here I contextualise this study themselves and their desires to be independent, entrepreneurial,
within the literature on PES, neoliberalisation and conservation, and successful, are seen to be embedded in the operation of wider
and outline the need for an ethnographic approach based upon modes of neoliberal government, which are reliant upon the com-
the insights of neoliberal governmentality. Section 2 outlines the pliance engendered through these forms of subjectivity.
particulars of the case study, detailing the arguments used in For example, Lockie and Higgins (2007) have detailed the
the scheme for a market-based approach, and Section 3 evaluates advance of neoliberal governmentality in Australia, where environ-
the reasons for these preferences. Section 4 then discusses the mental degradation resulting from farming practice has been
implications of these findings. framed as a form of market failure, in order to construct environ-
mental management as a form of economically-rational behaviour
1.1. Literature review (see also Lockie, 2009). Equally, Fletcher (2010) and Rutherford
(2007) have discussed the emergence of neoliberal subjectivity as
Assessing the literature on PES, three key themes emerge. an essential component in emerging forms of ‘green governmental-
Firstly, the way PES work in practise does not fit the neoliberal ide- ity’, or ‘environmentality’, emphasising the role of citizens as con-
als of World Bank strategists and economists who have played a sumers, with environmental concern framed as a matter of
lead role in their initial instigation. This has led to calls for a more individual responsibility, to be addressed through the apparatus
nuanced approach, which pays greater attention to the cultural and of the market. Given the overlaps that are evident, a governmental-
institutional contexts that have affected the political–economic ity approach is seen to be equally relevant to the understanding of
architecture of individual schemes (Corbera et al., 2009; McAfee how PES schemes are being deployed.
and Shapiro, 2010; Muradian et al., 2010). Secondly, a number of However, this approach can also be used to draw out important
problems have been connected to the implementation of market contests to the assumed hegemony of these governance models,
governance and ecosystem commodification, in relation to their with analyses focused upon subjects’ responses and adaption of
practicability, and implications for social equity and environmental the neoliberal model (Laurie and Bondi, 2005; Li, 2007). Here
ethics (Corbera et al., 2007; Gomez-Baggethun and Ruiz-Perez, post-structural feminist theory has been applied to argue that
2011; Spash, 2008). Thirdly, people’s willingness to participate in the attributes of the neoliberal subject are not necessarily fixed
schemes has been outlined as an area for further investigation, fol- essences of human character with which neoliberal policy pro-
lowing the argument that a simple focus on financial motivations grammes ‘naturally’ identify. Rather, the achievement of govern-
does not paint a sufficiently sophisticated picture (Kosoy et al., mentality can be seen as a process of repeated practice and
2008; Kenter et al., 2011; Spash et al., 2009). inscribed procedure, through which complicit assumptions and
Considering the current gaps in the literature, it is evident that behavioural codes become routine (Gibson-Graham, 2006). In
whilst there is a substantial body of work on the origins of PES and these terms, the achievement of hegemony is seen as a process
an increasing number of studies exploring the perspective of land of subjection through which subjects are made, but also make
managers, there has been very little consideration of how PES are themselves (Gibson-Graham, 2006, p. 23; Butler, 1997); so propos-
mobilised and negotiated by intermediary actors. These include ing a means of contesting neoliberal hegemony.
the NGO administrators, ecologists, and other technical staff who In terms of the methods applied to draw out such analyses, Li’s
play a key role in the development and dissemination of these dis- (2007) ethnography of development programmes in Indonesia and
courses. Equally, a further area that has not yet been fully ad- Gibson-Graham’s (2006) work on political–economic restructuring
dressed is the question of how neoliberal ideals have remained in Australia and the Philippines, provide important frameworks to
dominant in the rhetoric surrounding PES, despite the strident cri- guide the evaluation of PES. This approach is further supported by
tiques that have emerged. Perhaps most puzzling is the evidence a wide body of literature addressing the question of neoliberal
that protagonists of this approach are not just financial institutions hegemony through the conduct of numerous multi-sited ethnog-
and academics set to benefit from the advance of these governance raphies of neoliberalisation in action, development, and translation
models, but also conservationists who have previously contested (England and Ward, 2007; Greenhouse, 2009; Laurie and Bondi,
the advance of capitalist values into the realm of environmental 2005; Larner, 2000; Larner and Laurie, 2010; Larner and le Heron,
protection (Adams, 2009; Gomez-Baggethun and Ruiz-Perez, 2002b; Ong, 2007; Thrift, 2000). Specifically, these scholars have
2011; Spash, 2011); further reinforcing the need to reflect upon aimed to identify the heterogeneous processes and permutations
the role of these actors in the advance of PES schemes. through which neoliberal agendas are being advanced, as well as
This paper seeks to address these gaps by focusing upon the following the individuals and organisations that have been active
question of how a neoliberal approach has gained traction with a in their dissemination.
group of conservationists working for an NGO called the Wildlife Drawing lines of connection with the PES literature, recent
Trust in the UK, developing a PES-inspired scheme in the uplands scholarship on ‘neoliberal natures’ and nature conservation has
of Mid Wales called the Pumlumon Project. In pursuing these aims, similarly begun to unpack the formation and negotiation of neolib-
the paper also speaks to a wider body of literature on neoliberal eral agendas within various conservation NGO’s and state bodies
hegemony, and the ways in which neoliberal subjectivities are cre- across the globe (Antipode Special Issue, 2010). As such, the neolib-
ated and resisted, responding to questions there-in on the role of eralisation of nature has been traced through international conven-
intermediary actors (Larner and Laurie, 2010). Here we are tions, media events, briefing papers, management seminars,
 S. Wynne-Jones / Geoforum 43 (2012) 1035–1044 1037

institutional reviews, fundraising dinners, and publicity materials, enabling me to position the experiences and framing of the Pumlu-
to name but a few sites of engagement; so echoing wider assem- mon Project within the wider discourses and power dynamics of
blages within the worlds of finance, business and development. the conservation sector here.
As such, ‘neoliberalism’ has become peopled, as well as being lo-
cated in time and place, rather than appearing as an anonymous 2. Case-study – The Pumlumon Project
and abstract ideal.
Evaluating these approaches, Larner and Laurie (2010) highlight In this section, I will set out an overview of my case study: the
the often overlooked role of ‘expert intermediaries’ and ‘middling Pumlumon Project1, outlining how and why the project was set-up,
technocrats’ within such narratives, and hence call for a renewed and detailing the aims of the project to pilot new approaches to con-
focus on the influence of these actors, to which this paper re- servation management through the production of ecosystem goods
sponds. In particular, they argue for an approach centred upon and services.
individuals working ‘on the ground’, in the transmission of ‘global’ The Pumlumon Project is run by the Montgomeryshire branch
policy agendas to different locales. Connecting their arguments to of the Wildlife Trust, a UK-wide conservation NGO. It operates in
the conservation literature, it has long been recognised that non- the northern region of the Cambrian Mountains, in Mid Wales, sur-
state agencies act as key vectors in the transmission of different rounding the peak of Pumlumon from which it takes its name (see
policy ideals, in both the Global South (Bryant, 2002) and North Fig. 1). The project has been in existence in various forms since
(Adams, 2004). Moreover, the emerging literature on payments 2005, and is presented as part of the Wildlife Trust’s Living Land-
for ecosystem services demonstrates the continued role of NGO’s scapes Initiative, a UK-wide proposal to set-up a series of large or
and charitable bodies within the delivery mechanisms of these ‘landscape-scale’ conservation projects. These are designed to
programmes (Farley and Costanza, 2010; Muradian et al., 2010). counter the declining ecological status of the British countryside,
Hence, the necessity of attending to the individuals operating by creating areas for habitat recreation and greater ecological con-
within such networks is further reinforced. nectivity, as well as promoting resilience in the face of climate
Overall, the discussion here has positioned the contribution of change and other sources of ecological risk. However, despite being
this paper in the following terms. Firstly, to address the question part of a wider initiative, the project has maintained a unique iden-
of how neoliberal hegemony is being achieved in the development tity and objectives specifically tailored to the local environment
of a PES scheme in the UK, focusing upon the experiences and and social context of the Cambrian Mountains. The project was de-
understandings of the conservationists who have initiated and signed by the Montgomeryshire team to address the needs they
are administering the scheme. As such, the paper tackles a gap in perceived within their area, rather than being implemented in a
the PES literature, in terms of the role of ‘middling actors’ in the more top-down fashion.
dissemination and negotiation of neoliberal discourse. In addition, The project team was initially made up of two longstanding
the paper responds to Larner and Laurie’s (2010) call for a renewed staff members, who were the core managerial team at Montgom-
focus on the role of ‘expert intermediaries’ in the deployment of eryshire, and a body of Trustees associated with the Wildlife Trust.
neoliberal governance models more broadly. In these objectives, Subsequently, the team was expanded to encompass three new
an ethnographic approach has been outlined as one which enables staff members who were brought on-board to deal with farmer
the construction of detailed narratives, tracing network formation liaison work, tourism proposals, and ecological issues. These staff
and the transfer and adaptation of key discourses. In addition, eth- members remained with the project throughout the fieldwork pro-
nography is seen to enable a focus on individuals’ subjectivity, and cess, and whilst the newer staff technically held more junior posi-
how this translates into a preference for neoliberal governance tions they had a clear influence upon the project’s development, as
models, following the insights of governmentality. I will go onto detail in Section 3.
The project is intended to respond to the combined problematic
1.2. Methodology of socio-economic decline across the region, and within hill farm-
ing more broadly, along with environmental degradation that has
The analysis presented here draws on a range of material col- resulted from a legacy of poor management strategies throughout
lected over a three year period, from 2007 to 2010. This includes the 20th century (MWT, 2007a; see also Midmore and Moore-
numerous interviews with the staff developing the Pumlumon Pro- Colyer, 2005). Specifically, attempts by farmers to compete in
ject, at Montgomeryshire Wildlife Trust (MWT), both as a group global agricultural markets have led to ecological damage, whilst
and individually. I also took field-notes detailing observations from failing to bring substantial economic gain, due to the difficulties
site visits conducted with the project team, including publicity and of farming in such challenging terrain. Consequently, the project
awareness raising visits with members of the public; from conser- team have sought to reframe the way that farmers do business,
vation seminars and conferences in which the team were show- and the way that they approach nature conservation.
casing the project to policy-makers and other NGO’s; and from In order to achieve this, the project has expanded upon the
observations of their working practice both in and out of the office. Wildlife Trust’s long-standing agenda for biodiversity conservation
A range of documentary sources were also analysed. to encompass a new range of objectives, addressing climate change
This process of data collection aimed to build up a narrative of mitigation, water quality, and ecological resilience. But perhaps
the project’s development and the differing representations and most importantly, the project has reframed the way conservation
influences on the project over time. In particular, the importance is presented to farmers. To do this, the team have set out the con-
of biographical influences was explored through in-depth discus- cept of ecosystem services as a central aspect of the project (see
sions with team members to draw out how they had formed their Fig. 2). In these terms conservation is presented as a means of
individual perceptions and attitudes. In addition, both interviews delivering useful goods and services from the environment, with
and field observations attended to the emotional registers and land managers reframed as producers of these saleable commodi-
political dynamics of team members’ interactions and working ties. In this manner, ecosystem services are presented as a way of
practice. Across these different strands of data collection I diversifying from standard agricultural practice, to develop new
attempted to remain sensitive to the ways my presence affected
the dynamic of discussions and project operations.
Alongside this material, wider fieldwork on the development of
comparable projects elsewhere in Wales was also conducted, 1
See: http://www.montwt.co.uk/pumlumon.html [last accessed 20/4/11].
1038 S. Wynne-Jones / Geoforum 43 (2012) 1035–1044

of flooding downstream from the project site. As such, payments

for habitat restoration in upland catchments are being linked to
savings made by insurance companies from the avoidance of flood
events (MWT, 2010). Following a similar logic the team have sug-
gested that water companies who source water from upland catch-
ments could also become partners in the habitat works here, as
they have done elsewhere in the Wales,2 to improve water quality
and regulate run-off rates (MWT, 2007a). As such, they would be
paying for habitat works as hydrological management tools, as a
form of ecosystem service.
However, whilst these concepts are now well established, is it is
important to note that the project’s success has only been a recent
phenomenon. Up until 2010 the team struggled to gain any exter-
nal financial support, despite a number of applications to National
Lottery and similar charitable funding pots. Since then, they have
gained greater security through private sector interest, and the
increasing political support for their ideas is now also likely to
safeguard the future prospects of the project. Prior to 2010, how-
ever, the project team was largely focused on working within
MWT’s own land-holdings, conducting publicity, liaison, and re-
search work, and applying for grants. Nevertheless, it is important
to assert that the basic principles of the project set out in the early
project proposals have been maintained, and that the focus on eco-
system service delivery is something that was present at the outset
Fig. 1. Map of Wales showing the location of the Pumlumon Project (adapted from rather than being adopted more recently to improve the appeal of
Wikimedia Commons, not to scale). their work.
From a governmentality perspective, what is distinctive about
these developments is not only the implicit commodification of
the environment, but also the reliance upon compliant subjects
Key Ecosystem Services of governance, with strategies centred upon the inherent assump-
The enhanced natural capital will be used to sustain new ecosystem tion that land managers act primarily as businessmen. Adopting
services. These services will address the following issues: these logics, the project team have sought to improve upon a leg-
acy of fraught negotiation with farmers, by moving towards more
direct pricing mechanisms, in place of existing schemes which
• Diffuse Pollution framed the receipt of monies as compensatory payments for the
‘income foregone’ by undertaking conservation. In this manner,
• Flood Water Management
farmers can engage with environmental management as some-
• Water Quality Decline thing that is valued directly, rather than something which results
• Climate Change Mitigation / Habitat Creation in a loss of earnings which they should be compensated for. Or,
as the team put it, they have cast the production of ecosystem
• Carbon Sequestration
goods and services as business opportunities, rather than require-
• Declines in Rural Economy ments in another ‘subsidy style’ rural payment scheme (interview
• Value-added Food Production project team 10/1/08).
Further enhancing this framing, it was suggested that conserva-
tion works should be tendered to farmers, in order to mirror stan-
Fig. 2. A list of proposed ecosystem services (MWT, 2008, p. 7).
dard contracting procedures, and so provide greater incentives to
take environmental works seriously:
product lines or add value to existing goods which can be produced . . .we are working on a model for a new scheme that is less pre-
in synergy with these services. As the following excerpt specifies: scriptive and more a means of doing business – not telling farmers
what to do, but asking them whether they want the contract for
The Pumlumon Project is designed to enhance the natural capital of
jobs that agencies can tender. The farmers can then value these jobs
the Pumlumon area so that it can support new and viable ecosys-
themselves and get on and do them. This way, payments can be
tem services. These ecosystem services will provide the local com-
presented more as an effective business opportunity, rather than
munity with a sustainable economic future.
schemes as income support, which is the way they are failing at
(MWT, 2007b, p. 1). the moment.
Taking this agenda forward, the project team began by explor- (MWT interview 20/9/07).
ing the potential for ecosystem service delivery on Wildlife
Trust-owned sites, whilst discussing the prospect for such works As such, the notion of delivering a useful product is further en-
with farmers across the project area as a means to add value to hanced. But equally, it is argued that this method places responsi-
their existing product lines (MWT, 2008). Later on, the team began bility with the farmer to make decisions about how they manage
discussions with private-sector partners, in the form of insurance their land, to achieve particular ends, rather than being forced to
and water companies operating in the area, to obtain further fund- follow prescriptions which have been critiqued as inappropriate
ing for habitat works. and dictatorial. Here, it is evident that the team believes farmers
Subsequently, insurance companies have agreed to take a pri-
mary role in funding due to their vested interest in the mitigation 2
See http://www.blanketbogswales.org/ [last accessed 20/4/11].
 S. Wynne-Jones / Geoforum 43 (2012) 1035–1044 1039

prefer greater independence in their work, and the chance to inno- Living Landscape projects were more focused on working at a large
vate, to produce the required outcomes through their own means scale and promoting ecological connectivity.
rather than following standardised procedure. In explanation, it This is not to suggest that team members had not encountered
was argued that previous methods of regulation had been critiqued the concept of ‘ecosystem services’ prior to the development of the
by farmers for being too controlling and inflexible, which was then project, but it is hard to pin-point where this idea first originated
seen to encourage resentment and some degree of resistance. from. Discussing this with the team, it seems like a concept that
Equally, it was suggested that farmers would take greater pride, has always been latent within their aspirations for conservation
and have more interest in works where they were able to use their in the area, rather than something they remember being intro-
own techniques and ideas (interview Project Officer 2, 20/9/07). As duced to (MWT interview 27/9/07). Assessing project documents,
such, they have emphasised the necessity of flexibility and work plans, and email records, it is apparent that it entered their
devolved responsibility in the project’s design. For example, the framing of the project by 2007, where it is explicitly discussed in
team have presented the project in the following terms: their project briefing (MWT, 2007a). Here they remain vague, stat-
ing that ‘‘the nature of the ecosystem service delivery mechanism will
The farming unions’ main criticism of the current [Welsh Assembly
be defined over the next two years, in the development phase of the
Government] agri-environment schemes was their rigidity and the
project’’ (MWT, 2007a, p. 11), but they do define it as an approach
draconian measures that were implemented if the farmer didn’t
which:
keep to the letter of the scheme. The unions therefore welcomed
the Pumlumon Project’s more flexible approach. . . they reported . . .can only be achieved in partnership with the local commu-
that many farmers still have a very defensive attitude to conserva- nity. . .; will employ a multi-functional land management
tion, and that they don’t like being told what to do. approach; will be menu based; prescriptions, monitoring and pay-
ments will be based on outcomes. . .(MWT, 2007a).
(MWT, 2007a, p. 6)

In addition, the team were keen to assert their aim to work with Notably there is no reference to ‘official’ definitions of ecosys-
farmers, by showing trust but also presenting farmers as ‘experts’, tem services in any of their project documents (e.g. MES, 2005).
in place of previous approaches where only conservationists were However, it was evident that reports such as Stern (2006), on the
seen to have relevant knowledge. Specifically, it was argued that economics of climate change, had influenced the team, given their
the tendering of work to farmers relies upon farmers to use their references to this in group meetings when we discussed why they
own judgement, regarding the most appropriate course of action, believed it would be possible to attract investment in carbon man-
to achieve specified outputs. In these terms, farmers were seen agement strategies (MWT interview 27/9/07). More recently they
to possess an intimate working knowledge of the land, which is have referred to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural
more effective than adherence to generic management prescrip- Affair’s methodology for assessing the potential value of ecosystem
tions created from a policy template (interview Project Officer 2, service outputs, as a means to place an explicit value on the bene-
20/9/07). fits of the project (MWT, 2010).
Overall, it is argued that the approach to ecosystem services It was also notable that one of the core team members was
developed by the Pumlumon Project team is based upon a concep- heavily involved in a policy development and lobbying role, repre-
tion of farmers as knowledgeable, independent, and responsible senting the whole of the Wildlife Trust across Wales. Consequently,
actors, with market-orientated decision making, demonstrating he had regular access to ministers and senior policy advisors,
clear resonances with the characteristics of neoliberal subjectivity which affected the way he aimed to present the project and the
outlined in Section 1. priorities he felt would gain greatest support and attention. Of par-
ticular note, was his involvement in the consultation processes
3. Ethnographic explanations that surrounded the emergence of a nationwide agenda for ecosys-
tem service delivery in Wales (WAG, 2008; Wynne-Jones, 2010). In
In order to explain these understandings, the following sections addition, the whole team were regularly involved in workshops
will trace the development of project team’s ideas, outlining a and seminars to publicise and position their project, which again
range of influences from wider circuits of policy and expert dis- exposed them to the increasingly widespread discourses around
course, through to the everyday aspects of professional practice ecosystem services, and improved their confidence in pursuing this
and personal emotional attachments. strategy. Here, similar projects in the Peak District and Yorkshire
Dales, pioneering new approaches to catchment management3,
3.1. Tracing discourses and power in the conservation sector were noted early on as key inspirations.
A further influence was later noted in a local authority ‘rural
At the outset, it is important to acknowledge the influence of regeneration’ project, which had subsequently gained additional
wider circuits of knowledge and power associated with working partners and support from government agencies to take forward
in the conservation sector, in order to appreciate how this has af- a comparable agenda for ecosystem service delivery (Land Use
fected the team’s ideas and subsequent presentation of the Pumlu- Consultants, 2008), although it was argued that this had piggy-
mon Project. Firstly, as a branch of the Wildlife Trust the project backed on the Pumlumon Project somewhat, rather than inspiring
team were working as part of a UK-wide NGO, within which mem- them (MWT interview 2/5/08). Nevertheless, it is clear that the
bers would communicate ideas around best-practice, policy orien- wider interest created by this ‘sister project’ enabled further dis-
tation, and innovations in conservation science. Here, the cussions and debates with potential partners and stakeholders
Pumlumon Project was outlined as a flagship project within a which have undoubtedly shaped the project’s design and practica-
wider agenda for ‘large-scale and future-orientated’ conservation ble outcomes.
projects (MWT, not date-a), therefore, demonstrating overlaps The influence of such competition can also be seen as an impor-
between the project’s objectives and those being advanced tant guiding force on the way the project team tried to distinguish
elsewhere. However, the team has had a high degree of autonomy, themselves. For example, in both formal interviews and more
and the Pumlumon Project was outlined as something of a forerun- relaxed group conversation, all the team members expressed a
ner (MWT interview 2/5/08). This was particularly so in relation to
the implementation of the ecosystem service concept, as the other 3
See http://www.moorsforthefuture.org.uk/ [last accessed 29/4/11].
1040 S. Wynne-Jones / Geoforum 43 (2012) 1035–1044

perception of the Wildlife Trust as a relatively small and conse- You need to use appropriate language – not asking farmers to work
quently less powerful NGO. Consequently, they were keen to pro- in terms of habitat directives and carbon accreditations – but their
mote themselves as distinctive and different, in order to attract own languages... summer grazing, blocking ditches. . . describing
funding for their projects, but also to emphasise their relative methods that are sensible to them, to avoid alienation.
strengths. This is demonstrated in the follow extract from a docu- (Project Officer 2, 20/9/07)
ment detailing their distinction from the rural regeneration project
noted above: Equally, the physical aspects of communication were also
understood as integral to their success. For example, the project
In pushing for radical changes the Pumlumon Project and the Wild- officer who had been involved in conducting farm surveys outlined
life Trusts in Wales are following a high risk strategy. . .and the out- the importance of ‘a chat over the farm gate’, in place of a formal
comes are unpredictable. . . Local authorities, by their nature, letter. Similarly codes of dress were noted, as he outlined how
cannot run projects like this. They are much more tied to budgets ‘men in a suit’ were often put in the back of the Land Rover, whilst
and programmes. . . and are generally risk averse and slow mov- the dog could sit on the front seat – as a means to snub the as-
ing. . . [they] find it hard to take up positions that challenge vested sumed privilege of wearing a suit (interview Project Officer 2, 20/
interests, even when it is clearly necessary. 9/07). In these terms, it was clear that the team wanted to break
(MWT, not date-b, p. 5). down the distance between themselves and the farmers with
whom they hoped to work.
In this manner, their position within a hierarchical network of A further point of note was that the initial team members had
NGOs and government quangos has forced the project team to be chosen to employ a ‘born and bred local lad’ as their Farm Liaison
more bold and inventive in their ideas, encouraging them to run Officer (Project Officer 2), to ensure that language, accent, and an
with a concept that they could see was going to be the next ‘big acquaintance with the nuances of local gossip would not be a bar-
thing’, even if they were a little ahead of the curve at the start of rier. To clarify, Project Officer 2 was a trained conservationist who
the project. But equally, these pressures have encouraged them had previously held similar positions with other organisations. He
to be innovative about the different partners and funders they was brought onto the team during the development phase in 2007,
were prepared to work with, a point I will return to in Section 3.3. with the other two members of staff noted earlier, to support the
Overall, whilst the specific demands and opportunities of the core managerial team. Whilst he did not introduce the need to
Cambrian Mountains acted as the initial inspiration for the project, focus on the local community, it was apparent that his influence
their wider situation within the flows of knowledge and power cemented these ideas, reinforcing existing beliefs amongst the core
outlined has encouraged the team to push ecosystem service deliv- team.
ery as their central objective. Nevertheless, the adoption of these In particular, it was evident that such local sympathies and per-
discourses has also required more personal instances of affirma- sonal emotional connections had led to a positive spin on the pro-
tion, which I will turn to in the next section. posed reframing of conservation payments and management
agreements, whereas wider articulations of similar agendas were
3.2. Framing farmers as neoliberal subjects posited in less complimentary terms, as the following to extract
demonstrates:
In this section team members’ connections with the project Farmers can be very difficult to work with when the conservation
area, and the community there, will be addressed as key influences work you are proposing is contrary to their requirements of the
on their aspirations for a more socio-economic focus and the aim to land. . . However, once viable markets for new products are devel-
work with farmers. Specifically, the team outlined a legacy of in- oped and a price put on resources such as carbon, I think things will
sights gained over the course of their working lives (interviews change as economic viability is the bottom line.
MWT 27/9/10, 1/10/08; 2/5/08), alongside recent liaisons focusing (Conservation Officer Ceredigion, 7/5/08)
on the potential of the project’s goals (MWT, 2008). All but one of
the team members had been living and working in the locale for For other conservationists the reframing of payments is de-
over 10 years, and it is from this first-hand experience that they signed motivate land managers they regard as being stubborn
had realised the problems with previous models of conservation, and uncooperative. For them, the need to create payments for eco-
often ‘learning the hard way’ with farmers refusing to work with system services is based on the belief that farmers will simply do
them on previous projects. Hence, they were able to develop new whatever they are paid to do, and whatever makes the most eco-
concepts, further supported by feedback from farmers interviewed nomic sense, perceiving them in rather simplistic terms with no
as part of the project’s development. other priorities above financial imperatives.
It was from these experiences they began to develop the idea of The Pumlumon Project team’s focus on creating a payment
a more flexible, options-based approach, as detailed in Section 2. In system that appeals to farmers, through greater flexibility and
particular, they outlined that they were responding to complaints independence, can therefore be seen to contrast with the more
that farmers had made to them about the lack of local sensitivity, one-dimensional ideas emerging from other conservationists and
with strict rules around what they could do and when, which they policy advisors. Moreover, their presentation of ecosystem services
(the farmers) saw as illogical, given that factors such as weather as a tool for community regeneration and creating long term
could affect their ability to get onto the land to undertake manage- employment again betrays their affinities. Without an appreciation
ment. Similarly, generic rules around permitted grazing levels in of these ties, it would be easy to assume that the team were simply
existing schemes were seen as inaccurate, and often not achieving being strategic, and whilst I am not denying the use of such tactics
the desired conservation outputs. This was not only a poor situa- in the project’s development, time spent with the team revealed a
tion for conservation objectives, but equally served to frustrate more committed approach.
and alienate the farmers. For example, the way in which they articulated their approach
In addition, team members were able to draw further insights in internal meetings demonstrated a clear respect and genuine
about the presentation of new schemes from wider reflections on appreciation of farming priorities, which was maintained through-
their working practice. Here, the difference between farmers’ and out and not dropped once they were comfortable with my pres-
conservationists’ languages, and knowledge base, was deduced as ence as an observer. Equally, the way team members described
a further problem: themselves, as coming from the area and having a strong desire
 S. Wynne-Jones / Geoforum 43 (2012) 1035–1044 1041

to improve both the condition of the landscape but also the com- actors who are not dependent upon the public monies, nor waste-
munity prospects, showed a real commitment. These more per- ful of these resources.
sonalised justifications were often delivered in private, or when
we were undertaking a site visit and the prompt of being in the 3.3. Affecting themselves through professional practice
landscape, along with the more relaxed setting, led to impassioned
outbursts. The experiences of Project Officer 2 were particularly In this section, I will look beyond the team’s interactions with
notable in this regard, with long-held frustrations connected to farmers, to consider how their preference for a market-style ap-
his experiences of being a teenager growing up in such a deprived proach is tied to other aspects of their working practice. The pri-
area coming to the fore. The officer focusing on tourist develop- mary issue here was the frustration the team expressed in
ments, who had previously run a small business in the area, simi- relation to the strictures of state bureaucracy and regulatory
larly discussed his hopes and aspirations for the project based on a frameworks, which affected many of their funding sources and
sense of responsibility and attachment from years of living and the parameters of recognised conservation priority.
working here. In particular, the project’s reaction against existing policy, to
From these first-hand experiences and sympathies with the dif- take a more ‘future orientated’ approach (interview Project Officer
ficulties facing remote rural communities, a strong focus on the 1, 10/9/07), had ramifications for their ability to gain funding. Con-
pride engendered by useful work came to the fore. The importance sequently, the majority of my initial period with the team centred
of these emotional associations is a point that is also noted by Gib- on their concerns about the endless paperwork and specifications
son-Graham (2006) in their discussions of why we can become so to be met if they were to secure money for the project, which led
trapped in our imagination of political–economic possibility, as we to high levels of anxiety and irritation that proposed developments
have learned both consciously and unconsciously that the receipt could not be taken forward (interviews MWT 10/1/08, 2/5/08;
of market returns and the production of saleable goods is a positive fieldnotes 20/7/07, 27/9/07). Echoing these frustrations, a conser-
form of behaviour. vationist operating elsewhere in Wales also outlined that gaining
This contrasts, but in many ways also complements, with the access to funding was like a game in which you needed to know
presentation of new payments schemes by policy advocates who the rules (Interview Senior Conservation Officer Pembrokeshire
position the need for a more market-style approach as a response 17/4/08). This is a perspective that was similarly reiterated by re-
to the accusation that existing compensatory-style payments could search with conservation professionals across the UK (Robertson,
act as a form of unqualified subsidisation for farmers. In these 2008), suggesting a wider culture of frustration and restriction.
terms, the farmer in receipt of conservation payments was con- In light of these difficulties, less state control and greater free-
structed as irresponsible and over-reliant upon the financial sup- doms could therefore be seen as a means to facilitate more pro-
port of the state. Moreover, these subsidies were portrayed as gressive approaches, with a turn towards market mechanisms
part of a culture of ‘welfare’, which was used in a derisory sense understood as a more direct way of achieving outcomes without
to describe the lack of innovation, risk-taking, and entrepreneurial- having to rely on government monies. Equally, one could argue
ism within the farming sector. that the impact of living in a culture where we are pushed to see
Whilst the team did not appear to hold such harsh opinions the market as more efficient, and the state as a source of red-tape
themselves, it was clear that they appreciated these concerns and excessive administration, affects conservationists too. Particu-
(MWT interview 10/1/08). As such, they attempted to address larly when they find these difficulties so clearly realised in their
these issues by presenting a move towards market-governance as working lives. In addition, it was evident that the team not only
a fairer system, with farmers being held accountable for the provi- saw government monies as difficult to obtain, but potentially unre-
sion of measurable outputs, and ensuring that payments were no liable in the longer term. For example, as they set out in the follow
longer being squandered. project summary:
Yet they also attempted to play it both ways, by suggesting that
. . .a good business case has to be made for radically different meth-
farmers themselves would rather not be receiving benefits. Here,
ods of land management, so that farmers and landowners are not
the team argued that dependence on conservation payments was
just following a tick-list of desired actions funded by subsidy
often associated with farmers who were not successful in ‘conven-
(which could be changed or withdrawn), but are adapting to new
tional’ agriculture, and hence had turned to other forms of income.
market conditions..
As a consequence, because conservation was viewed in these det-
rimental terms, they thought it was difficult for farmers to take (MWT, not date-b, p. 1)
pride in undertaking conservation works. In this manner, the fear
of pejorative associations works alongside the desire for pride Whilst there is no evidence to suggest that markets are any
and self-confidence as emotional drivers on the need to enact par- more reliable than government money, it was nonetheless evident
ticular modes of behaviour. Consequently, reframing ecosystem that the team perceived them to be a more dependable source of
services as useful products was seen as a means for farmers to gain funding for conservation. In addition to their comments in inter-
wider esteem with the local community, returning us to the points views and documentary sources, this is further supported by their
about pride raised above. This is a view that is supported by others decisions to invite private investors, as well as their emphasis upon
in the conservation sector (Wynne-Jones, 2010) as well as resonat- adding value to traditional farm produce. As such, I am led to be-
ing with the work of Burton et al. (2008) and a recent study with lieve that they see markets as more effective, and their decisions
farmers in Wales (WRO, 2012). are not, therefore, simply informed by their perception of what
Overall, the discussion here demonstrates how the team has farmers will respond to. In this manner, they are not only attempt-
been directly informed by their situation within the local commu- ing to construct farmers as neoliberal subjects, but are equally
nity, and attempted to pitch the project in a way that appeals to inscribing themselves in this framing.
that local audience whilst simultaneously meeting broader politi- These decisions also connect with the earlier points made about
cal objectives. Here their presentation of PES is seen to work on the relative marginalisation of the Wildlife Trust and their broader
two fronts to construct farmers as neoliberal subjects. Firstly, by vulnerability as a small charity. Here their connections with pri-
appealing to the farmers’ desires to embark on useful work and vate partners can be seen as a way to increase their relative power,
be respected and successful for this. Secondly, to present farmers as well as financial resources, given the level of influence such
to government and other conservation professionals as responsible companies are perceived to hold. It was also apparent that the
1042 S. Wynne-Jones / Geoforum 43 (2012) 1035–1044

team felt monetary valuation was a means to achieve proper rec- and efficiency of markets, are seen as key factors in their steps to
ognition and a wider respect for the environment. For example, involve the private sector.
early on in the project I explicitly challenged the free-market men- Critically, it is evident that these experiences and influences are
tality they seemed to be adopting, to which Project Officers 1 and 2 not shared equally by all team members, with individual narratives
responded that other methods were becoming increasingly coming to the fore in many instances. Nevertheless, perhaps as a
implausible, hence conservation simply had to engage with this consequence of the small size of the team and the commonalities
new approach. There was a sense that they could sympathise with in their backgrounds, they have maintained a reasonable level of
my concerns, but that I was not being progressive, and for them consensus and collective ownership over the project’s direction.
ecosystem services was a way to get wider attention and long over- But even with this relatively unified project, it is evident why
due support for the issues they cared about (interview 10/1/08). schemes can become so varied in their delivery, depending on
The other team members seemed content to agree with this line, the particular individuals involved in specific places and different
but it was notable that an older team member was more cautious project components.
when we discussed this in private. Nevertheless, he seemed fatal- Whilst it is beyond the coverage of this paper to address the
istic about it, in that he too could see no alternative. Interestingly, wider impact of the scheme, it is apparent that similar strategies
when I have discussed this contention with other conservationists are now being pursued in government policy frameworks (Wyn-
a similar optimism about the potential for the environment to fi- ne-Jones, forthcoming), suggesting that the development of PES
nally be taken seriously is commonplace. Consequently, it would in Wales has not been a hierarchical process of dissemination from
seem that the faith in markets has been steered by the desire to the state down. Here the lobbying of Pumlumon Project Officers
gain acknowledgement and much needed financial support. can be seen as an important avenue for communication. But
A final point noted was that economics, as a science, resonated equally, gossip amongst conservation professionals, surrounding
with the type of expert ecological knowledges that the team re- the project’s progress, was also evident as a key factor in the trans-
spected and were used to working with. Hence, the process of mission of the Pumlumon Project’s approach to a wider audience.
ascribing economic value was understood as a scientific process, An important point to note in terms of the team’s influence, is
with the fixing of a price seen to ascribe a form of truth (Soder- way they portrayed their perception of farmers’ priorities as more
baum, 2008). Here, discussions of the need for ‘proper’ costing, grounded and authentic. Yet, recent work with farmers across
more accurate prices and the faith placed in official valuation fig- Wales suggests that their viewpoint does not tell the full story,
ures, for example those ascribed to carbon in the European Emis- and that farmers themselves are ‘playing’ the conservationists in
sions Trading Scheme (interview MWT 27/ 9/07), are indicative order to achieve their own ends, by telling them what they want
of these understandings. Critically, reflections emerging from the to hear. Here I refer to interviews carried out by the Wales Rural
conservation sector at large have also pointed to the influence of Observatory for their (2012) Farmers’ Decision Making report.
scientific training upon the principal modes of expression and val- From this data it was evident that some farmers involved in the
uation used in their professional lives, and how this has limited Pumlumon Project simply saw it as a way to gain a short term
their ability to articulate the range of values they attach to the nat- financial bonus, and did not share the team’s vision for PES as a
ural world (Taylor, 2011; Spash, 2011). desirable income stream over the longer term. As the WRO
Overall, these discussions show how the team are not only (2012) outline, there are some serious barriers to farmers’ engage-
attempting to frame and mould the farmers they seek to work ment with PES, and whilst the Pumlumon Project team are not en-
with, but how they also work on themselves. This is often unknow- tirely ignorant of this, it is not something they are keen to promote.
ingly as a consequence of their professional training and institu- As such, whilst the conservationists as ‘expert intermediaries’
tional practises, which lead them to iterate and normalise play a powerful role as advocates, brokers, and test-pilots for
particular forms of practise. Equally, their struggles with insecurity scheme blueprints, it is also important to appreciate the wider ar-
and marginalisation, in their role as conservation professionals, are ray of actors involved in scheme development and deployment, in
seen as important emotional triggers in their embrace of market order to fully understand how schemes perform and the modifica-
reforms. Whilst not identical to the aspirations for useful employ- tions made over time. In addition, these complexities in scheme
ment that they have pushed with farmers, there are many reso- delivery reinforce PES schemes as inescapably political forums,
nances here which again reinforce the importance of the where the tensions of social relations continue to play-out despite
emotional ‘work’ that goes into the stabilisation of neoliberal aspirations for a technocratic market solution.
norms. In accessing these narratives, ethnography has been presented
as a key methodological tool, given the depth and level of critical
engagement it enables. This is particularly so in the understanding
4. Discussion and conclusion of neoliberal hegemony, as we are able to appreciate the nuances
of why particular people want to work with these models of gov-
Overall, the above discussion has explored the development of ernance, by spending extended time in the field discussing, observ-
the Pumlumon Project, as a pioneer of PES in Wales, and analysed ing, and evaluating their responses and priorities. Whilst one-off
why neoliberal models of governance have become dominant in interviews and policy analysis can point to broad terms of explana-
the approach taken here. Whilst it is acknowledged that the pro- tion, such as the need to make farmers more responsive and
ject’s goals have been initiated by exposure to wider discourses, responsible, fuller ethnographic engagement demonstrates that
which assert the need for market-style approaches to environment the motivations behind these priorities are often complex and con-
governance, the affirmation of these concepts through the team’s tested, in the way that they relate to individuals’ own experiences
everyday experiences is outlined as an essential component of and affinities.
their acceptance and subsequent promotion. Consequently, they As this analysis has shown, it is not always a case of individuals
have taken forward a model of PES that is distinctly adapted to trying to secure personal gain. Instead the influence of specific cul-
their circumstances; demonstrating clear sympathies with the tural norms and associated identity forms have come to the fore
farming communities in which they live, and serving as a much here, which are then connected to a range of insecurities, frustra-
needed vehicle for rural development in the locale. In addition, a tions and desires to both comply and contest the social orders in
history of negative experiences associated with state bureaucracy, which team members are situated. Overall, a focus on the everyday
along with wider cultural pressures valorising the effectiveness and personal narratives involved allows us to appreciate the messy
 S. Wynne-Jones / Geoforum 43 (2012) 1035–1044 1043

ways in which the emergence of subject positions and processes of Arsel, M., Büscher, B., 2012. Nature™ Inc: changes and continuities in neoliberal
conservation and market-based environmental policy. Development & Change
subjection occur. But equally, this fine grained analysis demon-
43 (1), 53–78.
strates how neoliberal ideals are owned and moulded to suit indi- Bakker, K., 2009. Neoliberal nature, ecological fixes, and the pitfalls of comparative
viduals, rather than being imposed or imparted as homogeneous research. Environment and Planning A 41, 1781–1787.
frameworks. Brockington, D., Duffy, R., 2010. Capitalism and conservation: the production and
reproduction of biodiversity conservation. Antipode 42, 469–484.
Nevertheless, the question does arise of whether such readings Bryant, R., 2002. Non-governmental organisations and governmentality: consuming
simply reinforce the process of subjection, as it would be easy to biodiveristy and indigenous people in the Philippines. Political Studies 50, 268–
see the discussion here as a further affirmation of neoliberal prior- 292.
Burton, R., Kuczera, C., Schwarz, G., 2008. Exploring farmers’ cultural resistance to
ities. However, by identifying the reasons why neoliberal gover- voluntary agri-environment schemes. Sociologia Ruralis 48 (1), 16–37.
nance is so attractive to practitioners, I suggest we are now in a Büscher, B., Arsel, M., 2012. Introduction: neoliberal conservation, uneven
better position to appraise PES schemes. In the first instance, this geographical development and the dynamics of contemporary capitalism.
Journal of Economic and Social Geography 103 (2), 129–135.
could be achieved by combining the findings of this analysis with Butler, J., 1997. The Psychic Life of Power: Theories on Subjection. Stanford
others that have highlighted the shortcomings of nature’s neoliber- University Press.
alisation. Hence, we could be better placed to find a more informed Castree, N., 2008. Neoliberalising nature: the logics of deregulation and
reregulation. Environment and Planning A 40, 131–152.
compromise, which is not so swayed by ideological pressure. Here, Coase, R., 1960. The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics 3, 1–44.
developments which provide a more ‘hybrid’ strategy could be seen Corbera, E., Kosoy, N., Martinez-Tuna, M., 2007. Equity implications of marketing
as exemplary. In this manner, I agree with Muradian et al. (2010) in ecosystem services in protected areas and rural communities: case studies form
Meso-America. Global Environmental Change 17 (3–4), 365–380.
their proposition for an alternative framework for PES which
Corbera, E., Gonzalez Soberanis, C., Brown, K., 2009. Institutional dimensions of
acknowledges the inadequacies of neoclassical economic theory. payments for ecosystem services. An analysis of Mexico’s carbon forestry
But given the increasing number of problems now associated programme. Ecological Economics 68, 743–761.
with PES schemes, perhaps what is needed is not just a carefully Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K.,
Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M., 1997.
considered compromise, but a challenge to the cultural norms The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387
and beliefs that legitimate neoliberal frameworks of governance. (253–60).
Following Gibson-Graham (2006), we can appreciate that these Daily, G., Ellison, K., 2002. The New Economy of Nature. Island Press.
England, K., Ward, K. (Eds.), 2007. Neoliberalisation: States, Networks, Peoples.
ideals are not fixed, nor are they grounded in ‘essences’ of human Blackwell.
behaviour. So there is room to nurture new identity forms which Farley, J., Costanza, R., 2010. Payments for ecosystem services: form local to global.
could work as part of a different model of governance (Gibson- Ecological Economics 69 (11), 2060–2068.
Fletcher, R., 2010. Neoliberal environmentality: towards a poststructuralist political
Graham, 2008). ecology of the conservation debate. Conservation and Society 8 (3), 171–181.
In these aims, it is important to return to the main priorities of Gibson-Graham, J.K., 2006. A Post Capitalist Politics. University of Minnesota Press.
the project outlined here. That is to provide a sustainable model of Gibson-Graham, J.K., 2008. Diverse economies: performative practices for ‘other
worlds’. Progress in Human Geography 32 (5), 613–632.
rural development; foster community regeneration; enable pro- Gomez-Baggethun, E., Ruiz-Perez, M., 2011. Economic valuation and the
ducers to take pride in work, and take care of the environment. commodification of ecosystem services. Progress in Physical Geography 35, 613.
In these aspirations is it not possible to work with different desires Gomez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R., Lomas, P., Montes, C., 2010. The history of
ecosystem services in economic theory and practise. Ecological Economics 69,
than individual freedoms and responsibility? Isn’t common pride
1209–1218.
and co-operative working also a key part of these objectives which Greenhouse, C. (Ed.), 2009. Ethnographies of Neoliberalism. University of
we might want to engage with further to reach new framings? Pennsylvania Press.
Moreover, if conservationists aim to attain greater recognition Heal, G., 2000. Nature and the Marketplace: Capturing the Value of Ecosystem
Services. Island Press.
and respect for the environment, maybe they should return to Heynan, N., McCarthy, J., Prudham, S., Robbins, P. (Eds.), 2007. Neoliberal
the many emotional responses that have motivated their own pas- Environments, False Promises and Unnatural Consequences, Routledge.
sions, and acknowledge that economic framings severely delimit Igoe, J., Brockingham, D., 2007. Neoliberal conservation: a brief introduction.
Conservation and Society 5 (4), 432–449.
our abilities to achieve a full register of value. Kenter, J.O., Hyde, T., Christie, M., Fazey, I., 2011. The importance of deliberation in
In either case, whether we aim to reach a more considered hy- valuing ecosystem services in developing countries – evidence from the
brid governance strategy, or pursue a more radical reworking of Solomon Islands. Global Environmental Change 21, 505–521.
King, B., 2009. Commercialising conservation in South Africa. Environment and
ourselves and our complicity as neoliberal subjects, we need to Planning 41, 407–424.
reflect further on ways in which these forms of governance are per- Kosoy, N., Corbera, E., 2010. Payments for ecosystem services as commodity
ceived to meet peoples’ needs, and suit their perceptions of their fetishism. Ecological Economics 69, 1228–1236.
Kosoy, N., Corbera, E., Brown, K., 2008. Participation in payments for ecosystem
lives and selves. services: case studies from the Lacandon rainforest Mexico. Geoforum 39, 2073.
Land Use Consultants, 2008. The Potential for a Pilot Sustainable Rural Development
Initiative for the Cambrian Mountains, LUC.
Acknowledgements Larner, W., 2000. Neo-liberalism: policy, ideology, governmentality. Studies in
Political Economy 63.
This research was supported as part of an ESRC funded PhD. Larner, W., 2003. Neoliberalism? Environment and Planning D 21, 509–512.
Larner, W., Laurie, N., 2010. Travelling technocrats, embodied knowledges: global
Thanks to Professor Mike Woods and Dr. Mark Whitehead for their privatisation in telecoms and water. Geoforum 41, 218–226.
support with this work; also to Professor Wendy Larner for her Larner, W., Le Heron, R., 2002a. From economic globalisation to globalising
encouragement and guidance in the development of this article; economic processes: towards post-structural political economies. Geoforum
33 (4), 415–419.
and the reviewers for their insightful comments which have
Larner, W., Le Heron, R., 2002b. The spaces and subjects of a globalising economy: a
pushed me to develop my arguments. Finally, this work would situated exploration of method. Environmental and Planning D 20, 753–774.
not have been possible without the welcome and enthusiasm of Laurie, N., Bondi, L. (Eds.), 2005. Working the Spaces of Neoliberalism. Blackwell.
Li, T., 2007. The Will to Improve: Governmentality, Development and the Practise of
the staff at Montgomeryshire Wildlife Trust and the farmers inter-
Politics. Duke University Press.
viewed as part of a Wales Rural Observatory project. Lockie, S., 2009. Agricultural biodiversity and neoliberal regimes of agri-
environment governance in Australia. Current Sociology 57, 407.
Lockie, S., Higgins, V., 2007. Roll-out neoliberalism and hybrid practises of
References regulation in Australian agri-environmental governance. Journal of Rural
Studies 23 (1), 1–11.
Adams, B., 2004. Against Extinction. The Story of Conservation. Earthscan Press. McAfee, K., Shapiro, E., 2010. Payments for ecosystem services in Mexico: nature,
Adams, B., 2009. Conservation and consumption. ECOS 30 (2), 2–9. neoliberalism, social movements and the state. Annals of the Association of
Antipode, 2010. Neoliberal Conservation Special Issue 42(3). American Geographers 100 (3), 579–599.
1044 S. Wynne-Jones / Geoforum 43 (2012) 1035–1044

McCarthy, J., 2012. The financial crisis and environmental governance ‘after’ Rutherford, S., 2007. Green governmentality: insights and opportunities in the
neoliberalism. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie 103, 180–195. study of nature’s rule. Progress in Human Geography 31, 291–307.
McCarthy, J., Prudham, S., 2004. Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism. Soderbaum, P., 2008. Understanding Sustainability Economics, Towards Pluralism
Geoforum 35, 275–283. in Economics. Earthscan.
MES, 2005. Living Beyond Our Means: Natural Assets and Human Well Being. Spash, C., 2008. How much is that ecosystem in the window? The one with the bio-
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. diverse trail. Environmental Values 17, 259–284.
Midmore, P., Moore-Colyer, R., 2005. Cherished Heartland: Future of the Welsh Spash, C., 2011. Terrible economics, ecosystems and banking. Environmental Values
Upland. Insitiute of Welsh Affairs. 20, 141–145.
Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N., May, P., 2010. Reconciling theory Spash, C.L., Urama, K., Burton, R., Kenyon, W., Shannon, P., Hill, G., 2009. Motives
and practise: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem:
for environmental services. Ecological Economics 69, 1202–1208. economics, ethics and social psychology. Ecological Economics 68, 955–964.
MWT (Montgomeryshire Wildlife Trust), 2007a. Pumlumon Living Landscape Stern, N. 2006. Stern review on the economics of climate change. Stern Review on
Project. Montgomeryshire Wildlife Trust. Welshpool. the Economics of Climate Change. UK Treasury.
MWT, 2007b. Pumlumon Project Progress Report. Montgomeryshire Wildlife Trust. Sullivan, S., 2006. The Elephant in the Room? Problematising ‘New’ (Neoliberal)
Welshpool. Biodiversity Conservation. Forum for Development Studies, pp. 105–135 (June).
MWT, 2008. Pumlumon Landscape Scale Conservation Project, Farm Plan Pilot. Taylor, P. (Ed.), 2011. Rewilding: ECOS Writings on Wildland and Conservation
Montgomeryshire Wildlife Trust. Welshpool. Values. Ethos.
MWT, 2010. The Most Important Hill in Britain. . . Natural World. Winter 2010, pp. TEEB, 2010. Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach,
13-18. Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB.
MWT, not date-a. Living Landscapes. <http://www.montwt.co.uk/livinglandscapes. Thrift, N., 2000. Performing cultures in the new economy. Annals of the Association
html> (accessed 03.02.11). of American Geographers 90 (4), 674–692.
MWT, not date-b. The Pumlumon Project and the Cambrian Mountains Initiative, UNEP/IUCN, 2007. Developing international payments for ecosystem services:
Montgomeryshire Wildlife Trust. Welshpool. towards a greener world economy. United Nations Environment Programme.
Ong, A., 2007. Neoliberalism as a mobile technology. Transactions of the Institute of WAG, 2008. Rural Development Plan, Axes 2 Consultation Document Rural-Affairs.
British Geographers 32, 3–8. Wales Rural Observatory, 2012. Farmers’ Decision Making. Report for the Welsh
Redford, K., Adams, B., 2009. Payment for ecosystem services and the challenge of Government. Aberystwyth University.
saving nature. Conservation Biology 23 (4), 785–787. Wynne-Jones, S., 2010. Negotiating Neoliberalism and Engaging Ecosystem
Robertson, M., 2004. The neoliberalization of ecosystem services: wetland Services: The Everyday Ethnographies and Political–Economy of Agri-
mitigation banking and problems in environmental governance. Geoforum 35, Environment Reform in Wales. Unpublished PhD Aberystwyth University.
361–373. Wynne-Jones, S., forthcoming. Connecting payments for ecosystem services and
Robertson, J., 2008. The force of nature – a BANC investigation. ECOS 29 (1), 2–9. agri-environment regulation: an analysis of the Welsh Glastir scheme. Journal
Robertson, M., 2012. Measurement and alienation: making a world of ecosystem of Rural Studies.
services. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 37 (3), 386–401.