Cernea Sociology for Development Projects

8/14/2019 Cernea Sociology for Development Projects

1/173

The Governance of Nature

and the Nature of Governance:Policy that works for biodiversity and livelihoods

Krystyna Swiderska

with

Dilys Roe

Linda Siegele

Maryanne Grieg-Gran


2/173

i

The Governance o Nature and the Nature o Governance:Policy that works or biodiversity and livelihoods

Krystyna Swiderska, with Dilys Roe, Linda Siegele, Maryanne Grieg-Gran


3/173

ii

Acknowledgeents

The authors are grateul to SwedBio (the Swedish International Biodiversity Program unded by Sida) and theUNDP/Equator Initiative or their nancial support. A big thank-you to Sonja Vermeulen (IIED) and Maria Berlekom(SwedBio) or their useul comments on the drat. A special thanks also to our country partners who helpedorganise, conduct and write up the country case studies, in particular:

Tanzania: Faustin Maganga (Institute o Resource Assessment, IRA), Tom Blomley and David Howlett

India: Neema Pathak, Madhu Sarin, Tejaswini Apte, Kanchi Kohli, Ashish Kothari and Seema Bhatt

Peru: Micha Torres, Alejandro Argumedo and Inti Montenegro (ANDES) and Maria Luisa del Rio (CONAM)

Thanks also to Michel Pimbert (IIED) or his guidance, Joy Hyvarinen (FIELD) or comments on the drat, and toJames Mayers and Steve Bass or their advice in the early stages. Finally, we would also like to thank Fiona Hall orediting the drat, Richard Scarborough and Piers Aitman or design and layout, Catherine Baker and AlessandraGiuliani or their help with compiling reerences, and Vanessa Mcleod-Kourie and Khanh Tran-Thanh or helpingcoordinate the production process.


4/173

iii

Acronys and abbreviations

ABS Access and benet sharing

BMC Biodiversity Management Committees (India)

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CBNRM Community-based natural resource management

CBO Community-based organisation

CCA Community conserved areas

CGIAR Consultative Group on International AgriculturalResearch

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species o Fauna and FloraCONAM The National Commission or Environment (Peru)

COP Conerence o Parties (to the CBD)

CTE World Trade Organisations Committee on Tradeand Environment

CWM Community wildlie management

DBS Direct budget support

DDS Deccan Development Society

DFID UK Department or International Development

EIA Environmental impact assessment

FDI Foreign direct investment

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation o the United

NationsFRA The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest

Dwellers (Recognition o Forest Rights) Act, 2006(India)

FTA Free trade agreement

GEF Global Environment Facility

GMO Genetically modied organism

HYVs High yielding varieties

IGC Inter-Governmental Committee on GeneticResources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore

IGO Inter-governmental organisation

IIFB International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity

ILO International Labour OrganisationIMF International Monetary Fund

INRENA The National Institute or Natural Resources (Peru)

IPRs Intellectual property rights

IUCN International Union or Conservation o Nature

JFM Joint orest management

MA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

MDG Millennium Development Goals

MEA Multilateral environmental agreements

MKUKUTA National Strategy or Growth and Reduction oPoverty (Tanzania)

NBA National Biodiversity Authority (India)

NBSAP National biodiversity strategy and action plan

Norad Norwegian Agency or Development Cooperation

NR Natural resources

NTFP Non-timber orest product

OECD Organisation or Economic Co-operation andDevelopment

PA Protected area

PBR Peoples biodiversity register

PDS Public Distribution System (India)PESA Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act,

1996(India)

PFM Participatory orest management

PIC Prior inormed consent

PoWPA Programme o Work on Protected Areas (CBD)

PRSP Poverty reduction strategy paper

PTPA US-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement

RH Resident hunting (Tanzania)

SBB State Biodiversity Boards (India)

SEZ Special economic zone (India)

SPS Sanitary and phytosanitary measures

TANAPA Tanzania National Parks Authority

TK Traditional knowledge

TRIPS Trade-related aspects o intellectual propertyrights

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNFCCC UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

UNPFII UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

UPOV International Union or the Protection o NewVarieties o Plants Convention

USD United States dollars

WIPO World Intellectual Property OrganisationWLPA Wildlie Protection Act (India)

WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development

WTO World Trade Organisation


5/173

iv

Contents

Acknowledgements iiAcronyms and abbreviations iii

Eecutive Suary vii

Capter 1. Introduction 1

1.1. Governance, biodiversity and livelihoods 11.2. Objectives and ocus 1

PART 1: BIODIVERSITY GOVERNANCE ISSUES: A GLOBAL REVIEW 5

Capter 2. Biodiversity 72.1. Key terms 72.2. Biodiversity loss 92.3. The many values o biodiversity 112.4. Integrating local values into biodiversity assessments 15

Capter 3. Good governance 18

3.1. What is governance and why is it ailing biodiversity and livelihoods? 183.2. What kind o governance do we need? 213.3. Promoting good governance in biodiversity conservation 25

Capter 4. Governance at te local level: counity-based conservation 32

4.1. Has community-based conservation worked? 334.2. Institutional constraints to community-based conservation 34

4.4. Strengthening local institutions, rights and participation 364.5. Scaling-up community conservation 38

Capter 5. Governance at te national level: ainstreaing biodiversity 41

5.1. Mainstreaming biodiversity and economic valuation 415.2. Improving the planning process or national biodiversity strategies and action plans 45

Capter 6. Governance at te international level 48

6.1. The Convention on Biological Diversity 486.2. Gaps in the biodiversity discourse: sustainable use and human rights 526.3. Access to and benets rom genetic resources 566.4. Coherence between the biodiversity and trade agendas 58

PART 2: COUNTRY CASE STUDIES 63Introduction 64

Capter 7. India 65

7.1. Wildlie conservation policy 657.2. Biodiversity legislation in India 677.3. Wildlie versus people lobbies 687.4. National biodiversity strategy and action plan 707.5. Towards rights or pastoralists, tribal peoples and orest communities 727.6. Mainstreaming biodiversity in development policy and planning 757.7. Integrating biodiversity into agriculture and rural development policy 817.8. Integrating biodiversity into state and district planning 847.9. The role o donors 847.10. Getting biodiversity onto the political agenda 85

7.11. Policymaking and implementation processes 857.12. Strategies or infuencing policy 877.13. Suggestions or action-research 88


6/173

v

Capter 8. Tanzania 90

8.1. Wildlie conservation and national parks 908.2. Restrictions on wildlie hunting 928.3. Community wildlie management and WMAs 928.4. Participatory orest management and its impacts 938.5. Mainstreaming the environment: the MKUKUTA 1008.6. Tanzanias NBSAP and mainstreaming biodiversity 1048.7. Infuencing policymaking and implementation processes 1058.8. Suggestions or action-research 108

Capter 9. Peru 111

9.1. Protected area co-management 111

9.2. Mainstreaming biodiversity in development policies 1129.3. Policymaking and implementation processes 1249.4. Conclusions and recommendations 1259.5. Suggestions or uture action-research 125

PART 3: CONCLUSIONS AND WAYS FORWARD 127

Capter 10. Conclusions 128

10.1. Improving policymaking processes 12910.2. Recognising and enorcing local rights 13110.3. Strengthening governance at the local level 13310.4. Improving policy coherence and mainstreaming biodiversity across all sectors 135

Capter 11. Ways orward 137

11.1. Community empowerment approaches 13711.2. Approaches or improving policies and institutions 14011.3. Going urther 143

Anne: List o People Interviewed 144

REFERENCES 146


7/173

vi


8/173

vii

ExECUTIVE SUmmARYBiodiversity and ecosystem services are being degraded aster than at any other time in human history. Most othe worlds biodiversity is ound in Southern countries where people greatly depend on natural resources butsuer rom high levels o rural poverty and oten weak governance. Weak governance (eg. political marginalisationand corruption) is a key underlying driver o both biodiversity loss and poverty. At the same time, the role obiodiversity in the provision o ecosystem services that underpin national economies and rural livelihoods is largelyoverlooked. As the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment ound, reversing ecosystem degradation while meeting thegrowing demand or ecosystem services will require signicant changes in policies, institutions, and practices.

The 190 Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are committed to achieve, by 2010, a signicant

reduction in the current rate o biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution topoverty alleviation and to the benet o all lie on Earth (the 2010 target). This target has also been incorporatedinto the Millennium Development Goals. Yet in 2005 the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) ound thatecosystem degradation is accelerating, despite the rapid growth in national parks and protected areas worldwide(rom under 3 million km2 in 1970 to over 20 million km2 in 2004). This suggests that meeting the objectives o theCBD will also require mainstreaming biodiversity in development sectors; enhancing support or conservation/sustainable use by local communities; and improving the eectiveness o protected areas all o which implychanges in governance1.

This report is an output o IIEDs collaborative research project Policy That Works or Biodiversity and PovertyReduction and is based on a literature review and three country case studies (see text box). It examines biodiversitygovernance at local, national and international level notably: policy and institutional support or community-based conservation; mainstreaming biodiversity in development sectors and biodiversity planning (NBSAPs); and

the CBD process. It also reviews existing good governance principles or biodiversity - the CBDs Ecosystem Approach,the Durban principles or protected areas, and lessons rom the MA and natural resource management.

Case study suaries

A key part o this research involved country case studies or situation analyses on biodiversity governanceconducted in India, Tanzania and Peru. All three are mega-diverse countries which also have high levels orural poverty; and all three ratied the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) over a decade ago. The mainobjectives o the case studies were to review biodiversity governance in each country (mainly at national level):policies, institutions, processes, etc.; and identiy key issues and approaches or more in-depth action-research.The studies examined the integration o livelihoods in biodiversity policies; stakeholder participation in policy-

making; policy implementation; and sectoral coordination.

The Tanzania study ocuses mainly on the implementation o community orest and wildlie managementpolicies, and mainstreaming biodiversity in development policy (the MKUKUTA). The Peru study ocuses onmainstreaming biodiversity in development sectors and poverty reduction strategies, and showcases a successulcommunity conservation area, the Andean Potato Park. The India study covers all these issues, and refects in-depth on the lessons o the process or preparing the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.

The research process was itsel used to promote policy dialogue and collective action on biodiversity governanceand livelihood issues in the ocal countries, by bringing together dierent actorslocal communities andpolicymakers, environment and development sectorsto discuss particular concerns.

1 Governance includes policies, institutions, processes (o policy-making, implementation, review etc) and power. It is about who decides andhow. It is as much about process and politics as it is about the content o policies and laws.


9/173

viii

Wy is current governance ailing biodiversity and livelioods?

As mostprotected areas have people residing within them or dependent on them or their livelihoods, exclusionaryapproaches have had proound social costs and a number o protected areas have impoverished the communitiesliving in and around them, including some o the worlds poorest and most vulnerable, by denying themaccess to traditional resources or ood gathering, grazing, water, etc. As well as losing their livelihoods, localcommunities have been disempowered when control o land and resources has been taken over by governmentsor private corporations. Such disempowerment encourages the abuse o open-access assets. Many policies andpolicymaking processes are guided by the conventional conservation paradigm, which assumes that local peopledestroy biodiversity to meet their needs because they are poor. Yet there is evidence to show that poor peoplein biodiversity rich areas are both able and motivated to conserve biodiversity when they are allowed to play anactive role in shaping conservation initiatives and have secure rights to resources. Secure legal rights to benetrom natural resources give communities a key incentive to participate in and sustain NRM.

Over the last two decades, the top-down exclusionary conservation approach has been increasingly questioned onboth ethical and practical grounds. People living in and around protected areas are now beginning to be viewedmore as an asset or conservation than a threat, with important capacity to draw on, particularly given the otenlimited state resources or managing protected areas.

At the local level, we have seen the emergence o community-based conservation approaches which seek toengage local communities in management decisions, devolve rights to resources and allow sustainable use, tovarying degrees. Many countries have introduced new policies and laws to support community-based conservationand there have been some successes. However, in most cases, community-led conservation remains small-scaleand isolated and is poorly integrated within the ormal conservation sector. Many o the barriers to eectivecommunity conservation stem rom external policies and institutions: limited participation o communitiesin the development o community conservation policies; insucient devolution o authority and benets tocommunities; and lack o support rom other natural resource and economic sectors.

At the national level, biodiversity is continually being degraded by mainstream developmentprocesses outsideprotected areas (where most biodiversity is located), including agriculture, tourism, extractive industries, and soon. Mainstreaming biodiversity in other economic sectors is critical to tackle these drivers o biodiversity loss andto create more supportive conditions or community-led conservation eorts. However, many problems stem romthe act that biodiversity is economically invisible: it is eectively unowned, unpriced and/or unmarketed.Environmental protection is too oten perceived as a constraint to developmentenvironmental assets need to berecognised as producers o welare or the poor and revenue or national economies. This is especially relevant todecision-making on oreign direct investment, which ar surpasses development assistance in volume and poses asignicant threat to biodiversity.

The ineectiveness o the internationalbiodiversity governance ramework has been identied as one o the mostsignicant obstacles to achieving the 2010 target. This includes the weak political clout o biodiversity institutionscompared to those or trade and development, which are oten in confict with biodiversity goals. There arealso signicant gaps between CBD policies on paper and their implementation in practice (partly due to theprolieration o decisions, targets etc.); gaps between the power status o Northern and Southern Parties; a relativeattention gap on the CBDs sustainable use objective, which links conservation and development; and a limitedocus on agricultural biodiversity, human rights and community rights to share the benets rom their resources.Furthermore, there are limited opportunities or local biodiversity managers to participate in international policy,while conservation NGOs - and it seems, lie science lobbies - are quite infuential.

Wat kind o governance do we need?

Two important rameworks exist or eective and equitable governance o biodiversity, but need to be adoptedmore systematically:


10/173

i

The CBDs ecosystem approach: a strategy or the integrated management o land, water and living resourcesthat was adopted in 2000 as the primary ramework or action under the Convention . It seeks to balancedierent interests in society: local and global biodiversity values, conservation and development; andemphasises the need or decentralised management.

A number o principlesfor the management of protected areas, adopted at the Durban World Parks Congressin 2003, which emphasise subsidiarity, participation in decision-making, equity and accountability. Many othese principles were subsequently adopted by the CBD Programme o Work on Protected Areas (COP7).

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment also provides some interesting insights on governance, emphasising,among other things: stakeholder participation in ecosystem and protected area management; support or existinglocal practices and institutions that work; and the role o local rights and benet capture in many success stories.

Experience with natural resources has similarly shown the need or decentralised and adaptive management giventhe local variability and unpredictability o natural ecosystems; and or local resource managers to participatein policy making. As the case studies ound, broad participation in the development o biodiversity policy (eg.NBSAPs) need not imply higher costs, but oten results in better implementation.

Policies or community conservation have been most eective when they build on local experience and experimentsthat have worked, and provide clear incentives or community involvement (ie. sucient benets without undueadministrative hurdles). Scaling-up community conservation beyond area-based projects will require institutionalchange so that top-down external institutions (both government authorities and NGOs) truly devolve or sharemanagement with local communities, and start supporting local institutions. But such institutional change isdicult, particularly when vested interests are at stake hence it requires clear leadership rom the top andmeasures at multiple levels: proessional incentives, policy and legal reorm, guidance, training and learning-by-doing.

Progress with mainstreaming biodiversity in development policies has been limited but where progress hasbeen made, it has involved building on various existing processes or integrating environment and development,rather than developing a separate biodiversity master-plan. At local level, livelihoods are naturally cross-sectoral hence support is required or local institutions that can best mainstream biodiversity locally, and or local resourcemanagers to participate in policy debates.

Recoendations

Based on the global review and the case studies, the report identies a number o conclusions and recommendationsor improving biodiversity governance:

Support action-research processes on governance

As well as conventional projects to protect wildlie or orests, support is needed to address the underlying governanceproblems that result in the loss o biodiversity and in conservation measures with social costs. Participatory policyresearch can help to understand and infuence current governance regimes, bring together those who controlbiodiversity policy and marginalised groups, and move policy debates orward.

Improve decision-making processes

Actively engage indigenous representatives rom biodiversity rich areas in CBD decision-making processes,recognising them as rights-holders as distinct rom stake-holders, given their close dependence on, andhistorical connection with, biodiversity.

Improve participation in national policy processes, especially by local groups.

Link global biodiversity decisions with local priorities via multi-stakeholder ora. Major decisions about

conservation priorities and nancing are taken by intergovernmental organisations such as the CBD and the


11/173

GEF, international conservation NGOs and national governments. To date, many biodiversity decisionsnotablyaround protected areashave excluded local biodiversity managers and conficted with their needs.

Feed local knowledge, and science, into decision-making.

Recognise and enorce local rights

Apply good governance principles to genetic resources. As a minimum, the right o indigenous and localcommunities to decide over access to genetic resources they customarily use (eg. traditional crop varieties)should be recognised and made subject to their prior inormed consent. In addition, communities should beallowed access to ex situ genetic resources they have lost, to enable adaptation to climate change.

Provide clear incentives or community participation in NRM/ community conservation.

Devolve resource rights and create strong local institutions.

Strengthen governance at the local level

Balance national control and enorcement with devolved governance. Biodiversity governance regimes needto shit rom the current dominant ocus on state-run protected areas and legal enorcement to support agreater diversity o governance approaches, such as sustainable use, community conserved areas (CCAs) and co-management, all o which recognise and build on existing governance arrangements at local level.

Apply good governance principles to protected area management, such as recognising pre-existing customaryrights to land and resources; sharing benets airly so that poor communities do not bear just the costs oconservation; enabling active community participation in PA management (even i use is not allowed); creatingshared or devolved management responsibility; and giving communities compensation equal to the loss o

livelihood, income and opportunity where exclusion is the only means o protecting critical biodiversity.

Enhance support or CCAs and agro-biodiversity.

Create new institutional incentives to encourage devolution and start building downward accountability. Criticalto this will be changing the mind-sets o conservation/NR ocials and proessionals through training whichpromotes socially-oriented and cross-sectoral approaches.

Improve policy coherence and mainstreaming o biodiversity across all sectors

Revise conservation policies to promote coherence with indigenous and human rights rameworks, bothnationally and internationally.

Tackle mainstreaming by building on existing integrating processes rather than through separate master

plans.

Promote mainstreaming via local institutions, but with support rom higher-level institutions. More unding isneeded to strengthen institutions that can best mainstream biodiversity locally and or sectoral departments topromote more coherent policies.

Strengthen global and national biodiversity institutions. At international level, biodiversity institutions aremarginalised rom more powerul economic ora such as the WTO; and are being sidelined in avour o regionaland bilateral trade agreements negotiated largely behind closed doors.

Emphasise the economic benets o biodiversity conservation and make explicit the links between biodiversityand development objectives.


12/173

i

Te net steps

The nal part o the report presents some practical approaches and methodologies to improve biodiversitygovernance, ocusing in particular on empowering marginalised communities, and understanding andimproving governance regimes rom local to national level. Approaches include strengthening local institutionsand establishing regional ederations; tackling power asymmetries; creating governance learning groups; usingdeliberative democracy tools such as citizens juries and scenario workshops; and ocusing eorts on promotingpolicy instruments and laws that improve the process o policymaking and implementation across the board,rather than ocusing only on changing the contents o a single policy.


13/173

ii


14/173

1

ChAPTER 1. INTRODUCTIONEcosystem services have been disturbed to such an extent that, unless remedial action is taken urgently, achievingboth the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) target o slowing biodiversity loss by 2010 and the MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs) by 2015 could prove impossible (MA, 2005a). This report looks at the reasons behindthis crisis, pinpointing governance as the crucial actor to get right.

1.1. Governance, biodiversity and livelioods

Governance is about who decides and how, and encompasses policies, institutions, processes and power. Decisionsare oten infuenced by powerul actors (nancially and politically) while other groups in society have littleinfuence. Experience with natural resource governance shows that decisions will be most eective when theyengage a range o stakeholders, including local resource users/managers; use diverse inormation sources (eg. localas well as expert knowledge); and learn rom experience on the ground (see Chapter 3, Part 1).

For the last century or more, biodiversity governance has been largely centralised and top-down, and has ocusedprimarily on global conservation goals, oten at the expense o local peoples livelihoods. The actual and potentialrole o communities in conservation has received relatively little support, despite their knowledge, innovations andpractices relating to biodiversity (as recognised by CBD Article 8(j)). Exclusion o communities rom conservationmanagement and the costs they suer as a result o restricted access or displacement by externally imposedprotected areas the cornerstone o many conservation strategies have created conficts with many conservationauthorities. These can threaten the long-term sustainability o conservation eorts.

Experience suggests that more transparent, inclusive and decentralised orms o governance, along with secure propertyrights or local communities, can improve outcomes or both biodiversity and local livelihoods (MA, 2005b; WRI et al.,2005; Pimbert, 2003a). Community-based conservation is particularly relevant today as the global community strivesto meet both the CBD and MDG targets. Such approaches are critical or delivering both conservation and povertyreduction objectives, but require changes in policy and governance to succeed on a wider scale.

Most o the worlds biodiversity is ound in Southern countries with high levels o rural poverty, high dependenceon natural resources and oten weak governance (opaque decision-making, corruption, lack o rights etc.). Yet theimportance o biodiversity as a resource or economic development and or sustaining the livelihoods o the pooris largely overlooked by development and economic sectors. The role o biodiversity in providing the ecosystemservices, security and resilience that underpin economic development is poorly understood and consequentlyunder-valued, despite growing climatic and ecological uncertainty. Reversing ecosystem degradation while meetingthe growing demand or ecosystem services requires signicant changes in policies, institutions, and practices thatare not currently underway (MA, 2005a).

1.2. Objectives and ocus

This report is an output o IIEDs collaborative research project Policy That Works or Biodiversity and PovertyReduction and is based on a literature review and three country case studies that were conducted during theproject development phase (2003-2006). The project aims to improve understanding o:

How external policy, institutional and economic instruments and processes (ie. governance) aect community-based initiatives or biodiversity and poverty reduction.

How to better engage with governance in order to scale-up such community initiatives.


15/173

2

The project builds on the approaches and analysis (Box 1) used in two earlier IIED projects: Policy That Works orForests and People2 and Policy That Works or Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Regeneration,3 as well as morerecent IIED analyses o natural resource governance. It also aims to contribute to the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP) Equator Initiatives research and learning component on scaling-up community initiatives orbiodiversity and poverty reduction through policy impact.4

Bo 1. Key questions used in te analysis

The analysis o policies, institutions and processes ocuses on the ollowing key questions:

1. How are the interests/values o dierent stakeholders addressed in policy instruments (or contents)?

2. How do dierent actors participate in and infuence policymaking processes? Which groups dominate andwhich are marginalised?

3. What inormation is used or not used in policymaking? Why are certain paradigms dominant and why dothey persist?

4. How is policy implemented? To what extent is policy institutionalised to enable eective implementation?

5. What are the impacts o policy? How are the impacts o policy evaluated and lessons ed-back to improvepolicy?

6. How is policy co-ordinated between dierent sectors and levels?

7. How can institutional co-ordination and mainstreaming be improved?

8. What actors and conditions acilitate policy and institutional change?

9. What practical approaches and tactics can be used to improve biodiversity governance?

By ocusing on improving governance, this report seeks to improve outcomes or both biodiversity and rurallivelihoods. Weak governance (eg. political marginalisation and lack o rights) is a key underlying driver o bothbiodiversity loss and poverty, and a constraint to addressing the two issues together. Real progress in environmentalmanagement and poverty reduction oten involves changes in governance (Macqueen and Mayers, 2006; MA,2005a; WRI et al., 2005; Bass et al., 2005; DFID, 2002) and tackling political relationships that govern access toresources and equity (Alcorn et al, 2006).

Biodiversity governance is a vast and complex eld, not only because governance is complex, but also becausebiodiversity is such a broad concept, encompassing diversity at genetic, species and ecosystem level, and associatedunctions or services. This report does not cover all its dimensions in depth, but essentially addresses three broadchallenges:

1) Linking biodiversity and poverty agendas: There has been a long-running debate on the links between biodiversityconservation and poverty reduction, rooted in an even longer debate on environment-development linkages.There are sometimes conficts between these two agendas: conservation activities can result in increasedpoverty (eg. through loss o access to resources) and poverty reduction eorts can undermine biodiversitythrough over-exploitation o natural resources. At the same time, the two goals can be mutually supportive:many conservation initiatives need to address local livelihoods to succeed in the long term, while poverty can

2 http://www.iied.org/pubs/search.php?s=FPTW3 http://www.iied.org/pubs/search.php?k=&t=&a=&w=&s=SPTW4 www.undp.org/equatorinitiative


16/173

3

be reduced through better management and conservation o biodiversity to enhance income, health, oodsecurity, etc.

2) Improving policy and institutional support or community-based conservation: Since the mid-1980s, community-based conservation approaches have been promoted as a means to improve conservation and reduce poverty,but have been criticised or their apparent ailure to deliver tangible successes against either goal. However,much o the problem lies with external governance regimes (policies, institutions and processes) which havenot provided eective support or community conservation. For example, conservation organisations (bothgovernment and non-government) have oten been reluctant to devolve resource management responsibilityand rights to communities, build local institutions and institutionalise participatory approaches. Policies andinstitutions across dierent natural resource and economic sectors also tend to be unsupportive o community-based conservation.

3) Mainstreaming biodiversity in development: In the past, responses to environment and biodiversity problemshave largely remained within the environment sector and thereore ailed to tackle their underlying causes.Biodiversity is continually being degraded by mainstream development processes such as intensive agriculture,trade, orest asset stripping etc., oten encouraged by national growth, macro-economic and scal policies. Thus,biodiversity concerns need to be integrated across dierent sectors in order to slow the rate o biodiversity loss,particularly given that most biodiversity resides outside protected areas. However, such integration is dicultsince the value o biodiversity and ecosystem services to society (and hence the cost o their loss) is rarely takeninto account in national accounting and economic decision-making.

Part One o this report explores global debates, trends and policy challenges in biodiversity governance andmainstreaming. It is divided into the governance changes needed at local, national and international levels.

Part Two provides case studiesor situation analyseso biodiversity governance in Peru, Tanzania and India.These examine how participation and livelihoods are addressed in policies on biodiversity, protected areas, wildlieand orests;5 how biodiversity and livelihoods are addressed in agriculture and other economic sectors; andprocesses o policymaking and implementation. They are based on interviews, workshops and studies involving arange o stakeholders (policymakers, non-government organisations, researchers, community-based organisations,indigenous communities, etc). In both the global and country level analysis, particular attention is paid to thequestions in Box 1. These questions essentially refect the key attributes o eective policy processes, identiedthrough previous policy studies.

Part Three identies conclusions and key issues to be addressed, and oers some practical ways orward to improvebiodiversity governance and empower civil society.

5 Biodiversity is a relatively new concept, and its conservation and use is largely shaped by policies or protected areas, wildlie, orests and othernatural resource sectors.


17/173

4


18/173

5

PART 1BIODIVERSITY GOVERNANCE ISSUES:A GLOBAL REVIEW


19/173

6


20/173

7

ChAPTER 2. BIODIVERSITY2.1. Key ters

According to the widely accepted denition in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), biodiversity is thediversity o genes, species and ecosystems, and their variability, or ability to change.6

This section introduces the key components or levels o biodiversitygenes, species and ecosystemsand thecorresponding governance rameworks that relate to them (global, national and local). It is interesting to notethat in most cases, the CBD does not set the agenda or biodiversity governance, as other (economic) policies andinstitutions have ar more infuence on how biodiversity is governed (with the exception o protected areas).

Genes

Genetic diversity reers to the variety o genes that produce the dierent characteristics o a living organismbothvisible (phenotypes) and non-visible (genotypes). A gene is a set o DNA sequences that provides the inormationrequired to produce a protein. Genetic diversity usually reers to the sub-species level, ie. the diversity o varietiesor strains o a species and/or o individuals that make up a population. It can also reer to diversity at the sub-genelevel (eg. mutations). Genetic diversity is particularly important or crop and livestock breeding in agriculture, eg.or nding genes which grant resistance to drought or disease, both in the ormal/commercial sector and smallscale/traditional arming systems. It is also used by other industries to nd and develop commercial productsbioprospectingeg. cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, etc. Sometimes it is not the genes per se, but the biochemicalsthey produce that are sought (eg. or medical activity).

Governance

The CBDs third objective (see Chapter 5) on access and benet-sharing (ABS) aims to acilitate access to geneticresources and ensure equitable benet-sharing between the users (industrialised countries) and providers ogenetic resources (biodiversity-rich Southern countries). The Food and Agriculture Organisation o the UnitedNations (FAO) Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources or Food and Agriculture also provides a similar global systemor ABS, which deals with agricultural genetic resources, particularly commercial crops. However, other globalgovernance rameworks which promote ree trade and intellectual property rights (eg. World Trade Organizationand World Intellectual Property Organization agreements) and their national equivalents have greater infuenceover genetic resources and do not require ABS. Similarly, global and national policies on agriculture have asignicant (but largely negative) infuence on genetic diversity. Access to and maintenance o genetic resources arealso governed by local or customary institutions, eg. those that regulate use o scarce natural resources or promoteseed exchange.

Species

Speciesare the individuals and varieties that can reproduce together to give ertile ospring. This is the levelwhich provides most o biodiversitys provisioning services, ie. resources o value to individuals (eg. or ood,bre, uel), as well as to dierent economic sectors (sheries, orestry, tourism, etc). It is also the level at whichthreats to biodiversity are largely assessed (eg. the International Union or Conservation o Nature Red Data Lists)and at which many global conservation eorts are targeted. For example, threatened habitats or ecosystems aretargeted to maintain viable populations o species, especially rare, threatened or endemic species (those uniqueto a specic location).

6 Some commentators make a distinction between agricultural biodiversity or agro-biodiversitydomesticated resources including crop varieties,livestock breeds and so onand wild biodiversity (wild auna and ora). The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), however, links the two,defning agricultural biodiversity as the diversity o genetic resources (domesticated and wild) used directly or indirectly or ood and agriculture,including the diversity o agro-ecosystems (FAO, 1998).


21/173

8

Governance

In addition to the CBD, there are a wide range o multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) that are aimed atspecies conservation. These range rom those that target specic activitiessuch as the Convention on InternationalTrade in Endangered Species o Fauna and Flora (CITES)to those that target specic types o specieseg. theConvention on Migratory Species (CMS)or to those that are ocused on particular species or groups, such as theAgreement on the Conservation o Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP). Use o species is also regulated by inormal/customary local institutions that protect sacred species or sites, or ensure their sustainable use.

Ecosystes

The term ecosystem is dened by the CBD as a dynamic complex o plant, animal and micro-organismcommunities and their nonliving environment interacting as a unctional unit. The conceptual ramework o

the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), which examined the link between ecosystem services and humanwellbeing, is that biodiversity underpins a range o ecosystem services on which human wellbeing depends (MA,2005a). It identies our types o ecosystem service:

1. Provisioning: eg. ood, reshwater, wood, bre, uel, water.

2. Regulating: eg. climate, food and disease regulation, water purication.

3. Cultural: eg. aesthetic, spiritual, educational, recreational.

4. Supporting(support all the others): eg. nutrient cycling, soil ormation, primary production.

Previously, reerence was oten made to ecosystem goods and services to distinguish between provisioning services

and other ecosystem services and unctions. However, the MA uses the term ecosystem services to denote bothgoods and services, and includes both natural and human-modied ecosystems as sources o ecosystem services.

Governance

Ecosystem conservation is governed by a range o institutions rom local to national and international levelsincluding:

Multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC), CBD, The World Heritage Convention, and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.

Global markets such as carbon markets and the emerging REDD (Reduced Emissions rom Deorestation andDegradation) schemes.

National protected area systems which oten protect important services (eg. watersheds, climate stability,aesthetic values), as well as genes and species.

National/regional water management bodies.

National schemes or payments or ecosystem services.

Local institutions or resource management.

In addition, agreements on indigenous peoples and human rights also recognise the rights o indigenous and otherlocal people to regulate the use o biodiversity on their territoriesincluding genes, species and ecosystemsgiven their economic, social and cultural value.


22/173

9

2.2. Biodiversity loss

The MA ound that virtually all o the Earths ecosystems have now been dramatically transormed through humanactions (MA, 2005a). Human actions are undamentally and to a large extent irreversibly changing the diversity olie on Earth. Approximately 60% (15 out o 24) o the ecosystem services examined by the MA were ound to bedegraded. Changes in biodiversity due to human activities have been more rapid in the past 50 years than everbeore, and the most rapid changes in ecosystems are now taking place in developing countries. There have beenabout 100 recorded extinctions in the last 100 years, and i less well-documented but highly probably extinctionsare included, the extinction rate is as much 1,000 times above the background rates in ossil records (MA, 2005b).

The MA estimated that between 10% and 50% o species in well-studied higher taxonomic groups are nowthreatened with extinction (based on IUCN criteria o threats). It ound that genetic diversity has declined globally,particularly among domesticated species. Since 1960, there has been a undamental shit in the pattern o intra-species diversity in armers elds and arming systems as a result o the Green Revolution 7 (MA, 2005b).

Figure 1. Signicance o direct drivers o biodiversity loss by ecosyste type

Forest

Boreal

Dryland

Inland water

Coastal

marine

Island

mountain

Polar

Temperate

Tropical

Temperate grasslandMediterranean

Desert

Tropical grassland & savanna

Drivers impact on biodiversity over the last century Low Moderate High Very high

Drivers current trends

increasing impact very rapid increase o the impact

decreasing impact continuing impact

Invasivespecies

Over-exploitation

Polution(nitrogen,phosphorus)

Habitatchange

Climatechange

Source: MA, 2005b

7 Intensifcation o agricultural systems coupled with specialisation by plant breeders.


23/173

10

Bo 2. Cliate cange and biodiversity loss

Climate change is likely to lead to a sharp increase in species extinction rates as habitats are aected byrainall and temperature change (Reid and Swiderska, 2008). The MA estimates that climate change willbe the main driver o biodiversity loss by the end o this century. A member o the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently estimated that a quarter to a third o all species will becomeextinct by the middle o this century because o climate change (Pro. Parry, personal communication,2008). At the same time, biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation are expected to result in moresevere climate change impacts and weaker capacity or adaptation. Thus, special care is needed toensure that responses to one problem also bring positive (or neutral) outcomes or the other. Many o theproposals or climate change mitigation to date have paid scant attention to biodiversity conservation

or the worlds poor, who are particularly vulnerable to both climate change and biodiversity loss. As theSecretary to the CBD noted in the run-up to the Potsdam G8+5 Environment Ministers meeting in March2007, climate change and biodiversity loss are poised to interere with, and even reverse, progresstowards the MDGs

Environment ministers at the Potsdam meeting agreed that more eorts are needed to coherently addressbiodiversity and climate change issues together since they are intertwined. Preventing deorestation maybe one approach as tropical deorestation is a key driver o biodiversity loss and also contributes toaround 18-25% o global CO

2emissions each year. Tropical orests hold on average 50% more carbon per

hectare than orests in temperate and boreal areas and have richer biodiversity than any other terrestrialecosystem. At the recent Conerence o the Parties to the Climate Change Convention in Bali (2007),preventing deorestation nally got onto the ocial agenda. However, proposals to conserve large areaso orested land to reduce emissions rom deorestation rarely provide orest-dependent communities

with access to either carbon nance or orest resources (Reid and Swiderska, 2008). The biodiversity,climate change and poverty benets o small-scale initiatives that build on local knowledge and practicesmay be many times greater.

The MA identied ve direct drivers o biodiversity loss: (Figure 1). The signicance o each driver varies acrossdierent ecosystems, but overall the main problems are land conversion (or agriculture, inrastructure andurbanisation) or terrestrial systems; over-exploitation (shing) or marine systems; invasive species on islands; anda mix o physical changes, water extraction, pollution and invasive species or reshwater systems. Climate changeis, however, likely to overtake all o these threats as the dominant driver o loss at the end o the century (Box 2).

While biodiversity loss is clearly a consequence o these direct drivers, these are oten simply a symptom o widerexternal pressures including population pressure, macro-economic policy, scientic and technological change andsocio-political or cultural actors. Contemporary examples include:

Consumption and afuenza: while local people may contribute to exploitation o biodiversity in somecases, consumption demands o richer urban populations are oten ar more signicant drivers o biodiversityloss (Weber, 2006; Swiderska, 2003). For example, in many parts o Southeast Asia the sale o orest assetsby governments or conversion to oil palm plantations has become a major driver o deorestation.8 This inturn is driven by demand or cheap vegetable oil or use in the ood, cosmetics and biouel industries (seebelow). As a result, indigenous peoples who depend on the orests or subsistence are losing their ancestralland and livelihoods (Tauli-Corpuz and Tamang, 2007). In India, the recent decline in tiger populations is due tocontinued poaching to serve demand or tiger skins and body parts in China and other parts o East Asia, as wellas to habitat loss as a result o large-scale mining and hydropower projects (Buncombe, 2007).

8 According to Greenpeace, demand or oil palm in Asia by large companies such as Unilever, Nestl and Procter and Gamble is also one o theprincipal drivers o climate change (The Independent, 9-11-07).


24/173

11

Energy policies: biouels are set to become an increasingly important driver o deorestation and biodiversityloss in the South, rather than being the green solution that many people believe them to be. The EuropeanUnion and United States have adopted ambitious targets or the use o biouels. Large-scale demand or biouelplantations is likely to accelerate deorestation and displace millions o biodiverse small armers who willlose their land and livelihoods (as has already happened in Southeast Asia and Colombia, and is increasinglyhappening in Southern Arica). Furthermore, the habitat that has proven most suitable or oil palm (a biouelcrop) in most areas is biodiversity-rich lowland tropical rainorest (Reid and Simms, 2007). Even i uncultivatedwasteland is used to produce biouels, as some are proposing, such common lands are oten used or grazingand collecting non-timber orest products (NTFPs) and can be vital or poor and vulnerable groups.

Were does governance t in?

Poor governanceincluding weak law enorcement and lack o transparency and accountability o governmentand private sector institutionsis a key underlying driver o both ecosystem and biodiversity degradation andpoverty (DFID, 2002; WRI et al., 2005; Irwin and Ranganathan, 2007). The Intergovernmental Panel on Forests(predecessor to the UN Forum on Forests), or example, identied the ailure o governments and other institutionsto recognise and respect the rights o indigenous and other orest peoples to their territories, orests and resources,as an underlying cause o deorestation and orest degradation (Intergovernmental Panel on Forests, 1997).

Lack o transparency generally goes hand in hand with corruption and patterns o natural resource use that areboth unsustainable and inequitable (Macqueen and Mayers, 2006; WRI et al., 2005). For example, illegal logging andshing are prime causes o depletion o common pool resources on which poor groups rely (WRI et al., 2005). Theseproblems are oten compounded by unclear tenure and use rights or poor groups. New dynamics unleashed byglobalisation are bringing ever greater pressure to bear on land and natural resources and increasing the presenceo large companies in local level decisions and politics.

2.3. Te any values o biodiversity

Decisions about biodiversity management refect how people value and understand it. The CBD recognises awide range o biodiversity values: intrinsic, ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientic, educational, cultural,recreational and aesthetic (UN, 1992). The values o biodiversity are oten reerred to as intrinsic, utilitarian andunexplored uture option values (CBD Secretariat, 2005).

A key distinction can be made between anthropocentric values, dened in terms o how human needs andpreerences are met, and non-anthropocentric values, which reer to the inherent worth o nature (or biodiversity)independent o the value placed on it by humans. Sometimes this distinction is expressed as instrumental valuesrelated to human uses o biodiversity versus intrinsicor non-usevalues (Table 1).

The direct use values o biodiversity contribute to both local livelihoods and national economies. Rural livelihoodsin the South are highly dependent on biodiversity or ood, nutrition and health as there are oten ew alternatives.About 60% o the worlds people depend on the inormal health sector (WHO, 2003), because o limited access tohealthcare or cultural preerence. Thus, medicinal plants eectively provide a substantial (but largely unrecognised)subsidy to national healthcare services. Trade in medicinal plants in South Arica has been estimated to be worthUS$60 million per year (Mander, 1998). The South Arican MA estimates that the total value o day-to-day wildresource consumption is around US$800 million (Biggs et al., 2004).

Biodiversity also provides a wealth o raw materials or the ormal health sector: most o the worlds modern drugsare derived rom biodiversity (Koziell and McNeill, 2002). Tropical orest plants, or example, have been oundto contain medically active compounds with potential or treating HIV/AIDS, cancer and other diseases. Marineorganisms have also yielded a variety o drugs, including anti-tumour compounds which are currently undergoing

clinical trials (MA, 2005c).


25/173

12

Table 1. Eaples o direct use, indirect use and non-use values o biodiversity

Use values Non-use values

Direct use values Indirect use values Option values

Timber Carbon storage Industrial Landscape

Firewood Watershed protection Agricultural Heritage

Medicine Human and animal habitat Pharmaceutical Cultural

Construction Erosion control Recreational Existence

Wild meat/veg/fruit Micro-climate regulation Bequest

Animal fodder Nutrient cycling

Recreation

Source: Adapted rom Hansen and Top (2006); IIED (2007); and EEP (2003).

Agricultural biodiversity has direct use value, especially or small armers and sustainable/organic agriculture; anduture option value or both small-scale and commercial arming to enable recovery rom crop ailure. It providesa range o genetic traits and locally adapted crop varieties rom which to source resistance to pests, drought etc.For armers in marginal/risk-prone environments, biodiversity is important to enhance resilience in productionsystems. At a wider level it can saeguard against national economic losses.

Traditional arming systems in centres o origin or diversity o ood cropssuch as the Andesact as globalrepositories o genetic resources or ood and agriculture. Over hundreds o years, traditional armers havedomesticated and conserved most o the worlds ood crops and livestock breeds, and they continue to experimentto improve them today, creating urther diversity (Swiderska, 2006; Torres, 2005; Argumedo and Pimbert, 2006).Quechua armers in Peru, or example, manage a large array o plant and animal species in dierent stages odomestication and have helped to create the rich genetic diversity o the Andes (Argumedo and Pimbert, 2006).While many genetic resources are stored ex situ (in seed banks and research centres), only those ound in situ (inarmers elds and gardens) are available to be continuously improved and adapted to local conditions by armersselection.

The exploration o biodiversity or resources o social and economic valueor bioprospectingis carried outby a wide range o industries, including pharmaceutical, herbal medicine, seeds, crop protection, cosmetics,horticulture, environmental monitoring, manuacturing and construction. Bioprospecting can provide revenuesor conservation, technological capacity or research and development in the South and, in rare instances, largeprots or corporations. The value o undiscovered pharmaceuticals rom tropical orest plants has been estimatedat US$109 billion (Mendelson and Balick, 1997). According to the MA, many bioprospecting activities and revenuesare expected to increase over the next decades, including pharmaceutical bioprospecting (MA, 2005c).

Maintaining uture options is important because uture environmental conditions and needs are unpredictable,and because much biodiversity has not yet been explored. Estimates o the total number o species that exist onEarth range rom 5 to 30 million, and o these ewer than 2 million species have been described (MA, 2005c).However, it is clear that both the direct use and uture option values o biodiversity will increase with climatechange. Adaptation to environmental hazards such as drought, pests and foods, as well as increased climaticvariability, will require increased adaptability in agricultural systems. As well as providing genetic resources oradaptation, biodiversity enhances the resilience o ecosystems and hence reduces the impacts o climate relatedstress.


26/173

13

how dierent groups value biodiversity

Global vs local values

The values that dierent actorsconservationists, communities and commercial usersattribute tobiodiversity may converge, but also conlict. The ormal conservation community (eg. international NGOs,scientists and conservation authorities) has traditionally valued globally rare and threatened species andhabitats, and charismatic auna (see or example Brooks et al., 2006). Hence, priority is given to globalbiodiversity values (which are primarily non-use values and indirect use values), as opposed to biodiversitysutilitarian value to local people (local biodiversity values, see Box 3). At the extreme end o the conservationcommunity is the school o deep ecology, which argues that intrinsic values override all other biodiversityvalues (Vermeulen and Koziell, 2002).

Bo 3. Local biodiversity values

Agricultural biodiversity (crops and livestock, as well as insect pollinators, soil composters etc.) provides therange o bio-resources needed or ood production and nutrition; enhances resilience, adaptability and long-term productivity within agricultural systems; and allows diversication o livelihoods. For communities inagriculturally marginal areas, where only a ew crops can grow, a diversity o varieties can be vital. For example,armers in the high Andes grow hundreds o potato varieties, each oering dierent nutritional and medicinalvalues. With the onset o climate change, many communities will need access to a greater diversity o cropvarieties to meet their ood and nutritional needs (Swiderska et al., 2006).

Several billion people also use wild resources; wild meats, sh and insects provide much o their protein (over20% o all protein in 62 developing countries), while orest ruits and vegetables provide a source o vitamins

(Kaimowitz and Sheil, 2007). A large proportion o the worlds population1.6 billion peoplerely on orestresources or all or part o their livelihoods (Mayers and Vermeulen, 2002); while 150 million poor people countwildlie as a valuable livelihood asset (DFID, 2002).

Ethnographic studies show that people use hundreds o species or a wide range o purposes (Kaimowitz andSheil, 2007). A survey in India ound over 10,000 wild plants used by tribal people. O these, as many as 8,000were used or medicinal purposes and 4,000 or ood (Hitchcock, 1996).

Wild resources (eg. orest patches) can provide a criticalsaety netwhen staples are not available (eg. during dryseasons, drought, war and amine). In Zimbabwe, wild resources contribute 35% o total household incomeson average (Cavendish, 1997) and studies have shown that this proportion increases or the poorest householdsand in times o stress. A recent study in the Sahel ound that the households that are most vulnerable to hazardsare highly dependent on exploiting common property resources (or rewood, wild oods and medicines),

particularly during drought years (Trench et al., 2007). In dryland India, wildlie products provide 14-23% ototal income, rising to 42-57% in times o drought (Koziell, 2000).

For many indigenous peoples, biodiversity also has cultural and spiritual value (Posey and Duteld, 1996;UNEP, 1999; Koziell, 2001; Pimbert, 2003b; Swiderska, 2006). Vernacular societies believe that all parts othe natural world are inused with spirits (Posey and Duteld, 1996) and that particular species, varieties andecosystems are sacred. Andean Quechua people, or example, use sacred potatoes and coca leaves in rituals,and worship gods associated with sacred mountains (Swiderska, 2006; Argumedo and Pimbert, 2006). Manyindigenous peoples also regard the biodiversity in their territories as part o their ancestral heritage and eel aresponsibility or maintaining these resources or uture generations.

Conservation programmes oten ocus on protecting biodiversity hotspots areas with high levels o endemismand threat. Local people can oten be viewed as a threat to conservation while management decisions are oten

guided by the precautionary principle (Vermeulen and Koziell, 2002 ). For example, given the choice between100 hectares o globally rare orest, or 50 ha o that orest and 50 ha o diverse cropland, those who prioritiseglobal values would preer the rst option even i overall levels o biodiversity (in terms o species numbers) were


27/173

14

identical (Vermeulen and Koziell, 2002). As this example also highlights, most conservation organisations are moreinterested in natural rather than cultivated ecosystems, regardless o diversity value. They tend not to ocus onmanaged landscapes that conserve both agricultural and wild biodiversity, and overlook the positive role thatlocal people can play in conserving biodiversity. Yet there is evidence to show that even pristine wilderness areas(eg. in the Amazon) have in act been inhabited and managed by people or centuries (Pimbert, 2003a; Leach andMearns, 1996; see Chapter 3).

To the vast majority o the worlds population who are poor and rural, global biodiversity values matter, but not asmuch as more immediate goods and services gained rom biodiversity locally (Vermeulen and Koziell, 2002). Fororest dwellers, small armers, sherolk, pastoralists and indigenous peoples who depend on natural resourcesand have ew alternatives, the variety and variability o biological resources are intimately tied up with subsistenceand ways o lie. The poorest people are particularly dependent on biodiversity and environmental resources or

livelihood security (Koziell and McNeill, 2002; Bigg, 2006; MA, 2005a).

Global conservation programmes can clash with local biodiversity values when they restrict peoples access toresources in order to protect biodiversity. Although oten perceived as a threat, many local communities usebiodiversity sustainably because their livelihoods depend on it (Koziell, 2001). There is evidence that wherecommunities depend on a resource which becomes scarce, they will take steps to ensure its conservation (eg. thishas motivated many community conserved areas in India to be set up by communities o their own accord). Butcommunities may not be motivated to conserve a species solely because it is prioritised at the international levelbecause it is endemic, rare or endangered.

The CBD recognises the role o indigenous and local communities embodying traditional liestyles in biodiversityconservation and sustainable use. The act that conservation values orm part o many indigenous cultures,practices and knowledge systems has been well documented by anthropologists (see, or example, UNEP, 1999),

although some conservationists have contested this (Redord, 1991; Redord and Sanderson, 2000).

The agriculture systems o Quechua armers, or example, have at their core a proound respect or Mother Earth(Pacha Mama) (Argumedo and Pimbert, 2006 and see Chapter 9, Part 2). Recent case studies in Peru, Panama,Kenya, India and China ound that, even where traditional institutions have been weakened, belie in gods orspirits o sacred orests, mountains, rivers etc. is evident in many indigenous communities living in biodiversity-rich areas. They believe that nature must be respected in order to avoid the wrath o the gods (Swiderska et al.,2006). The same studies also ound a direct link between cultural preerences and prevention o biodiversity loss(or both traditional varieties and medicinal plants).

However, traditional values are becoming weaker, particularly among younger generations, due to variouschange processes, including loss o ancestral land and weakening o traditional institutions (Swiderska,2006). Ironically, a key actor driving the erosion o traditional knowledge and cultural values relevant

or biodiversity conservation is the alienation o indigenous territories to create state-run protected areaswithout adequately recognising traditional land access, and by orcibly removing peoples rom their lands insome cases (CBD Secretariat, 2005a). Faced with weakened conservation values amongst local communities,conservation agencies can either seek to strengthen traditional values and institutions, or impose externalmanagement systems which urther undermine them.

As Kaimowitz and Sheil (2007) point out, supporting local biodiversity values in conservation eorts does not meanthat species that do not benet the poor should be allowed to disappear. We need to nd a better balance betweenthe two. A ew international conservation organisations (eg. Birdlie International) and a number o national NGOs/CBOs (eg. ANDES Peru) have ully internalised a ocus on both global and local values as the end goal, basedon more equitable power and benet-sharing arrangements (Pimbert, 2003b). These people-centred or pro-poor conservation initiatives tend to involve bottom-up (ie. community-led) processes to strengthen communityinstitutions, knowledge and rights, as opposed to top-down projects.


28/173

15

Market vs non-market values

Some people prioritise short-term provisioning services, which have market value, over all other biodiversity values.As the MA ound, by converting natural systems to maximise the production o a ew provisioning servicescrops,livestock and aquaculturewe have lost many other services which are critical to our wellbeing. We are usingup provisioning services such as timber, groundwater and sheries aster than they can be replenished. Industryand state agencies or orestry, sheries, agriculture, nance, trade, export etc., tend to see natural resourcesonly as a source o short-term revenue, regardless o the costs to biodiversity and ecosystem services. They arebacked by powerul international institutions (eg. the World Bank and International Monetary FundIMF) andby conventional economic models which see natural resources only as a means to uel economic growth andwhich ignore the value o biodiversity and ecosystem services to wider society and uture generations. Similarly,biodiversity-blind development work oten raids nature or rapid poverty alleviation, eg. asset-stripping o orestsand soils.

The private sector has become increasingly active in the biodiversity arena. The MA ound that some companies areaddressing biodiversity issues. However, there are a number o conficts between the private sector and biodiversityagendas, or example around commercial use o natural resources, trade and investment; the need to share thebenets rom the use o genetic resources; and the privatisation o biodiversity (eg. through intellectual propertyrights) versus biodiversity as a global public good and community resource. The pursuit o rapid economic growthand the increased infuence o industry in some countries have led to a downgrading o environment regulationsto acilitate private investment (eg. in India). At the same time, the potential contribution o small and mediumenterprises (eg. in orestry) to protect biodiversity and reduce poverty is oten overlooked (Macqueen, 2007). Theseissues are discussed in more detail later on.

2.4. Integrating local values into biodiversity assessents

I decisions are to better refect the diering biodiversity values held by society, we rst need to recognise thesemultiple values and the variations in power o those that hold them. The voice and infuence o those currentlymarginalised rom key decision-making processes need to be strengthened so that they can participate equally andnegotiate trade-os where interests diverge.

Biodiversity assessments by national and international bodiesincluding governments, NGOs and the privatesectorare overwhelming predicated on global biodiversity values, but this bias o global over local values isseldom made explicit and is oten not intended (Vermeulen and Koziell, 2002). There are perhaps two reasons orthis: (1) the strong infuence o the international conservation lobby; and (2) the absence o good inormation onlocal biodiversity values and good methods to assess them: local biodiversity values, o all kinds, remain poorlydocumented and poorly represented in the global political arena (Vermeulen and Koziell, 2002). Furthermore,assessments conducted by dierent actors and at dierent scales tend not to be co-ordinated; hence local values

are oten overlooked in scientic and policy assessments, while global scientic values may be absent rom localresource assessments.

During the l990s, big conservation NGOs adopted a ocus on large-scale conservation strategies, re-emphasisinga scientic approach to conservation (ie. global values), in some cases replacing previous notions o working withlocal communities (Adams and Hutton, 2007). The conservation community remains largely divided between thosewho believe that responses must be based on rigorous science alone, and those who see understanding socialrealities and engaging local people as a practical necessity (Chapin, 2004). However, Adams and Hutton ( op cit)note that creative attempts to bridge the disciplinary gul between natural and social scientists are being made onboth sides.

As the MA concluded, combining local and scientic knowledge becomes absolutely critical or addressing wayso managing ecosystems (MA, 2005b). While the validity o local knowledge is sometimes questioned, it is worth

noting that there are also huge uncertainties in our scientic understanding o biodiversity. Estimates o the rateo species extinction vary widely and are based on incomplete data. Similarly, our scientic knowledge aboutecosystem unctioning, soil processes, etc. is very patchy. Furthermore, natural science is a social construct or way


29/173

16

o knowing which refects Western societys reductionist understanding o nature. Vernacular societies have theirown distinct ways o understanding nature and its complexity which refect their holistic worldviews and directdependence on nature. Their knowledge systems, evolved over millennia, are just as valid.

The CBDs 2010 target9 aims to signicantly reduce the rate o biodiversity loss at global, regional and nationallevels as a contribution to poverty alleviation. Although the CBDs indicators are ully scaleable, ie. they can be usedto assess progress at any sub-global scale, they were identied to assess progress primarily at the global level. Thereseems to be no requirement to assess biodiversity loss at local level or use local knowledge and data sets developedby communities (CBD Secretariat, 2005b). The CBDs Global Biodiversity Outlook provides a periodic assessmento progress towards the 2010 target. The second outlook (CBD Secretariat, 2006) shows that the weakest data setsrelate to trends in genetic diversity o species o socio-economic value, areas under sustainable use, and status andtrends o linguistic diversity (an indicator o traditional knowledge) (CBD Secretariat, 2006).

Yet, by adopting the ecosystem approach as the primary ramework or operationalising the CBD (see Box 7)governments have committed to locally driven biodiversity management. This means that while other interestgroups can have their say, local roles, values, priorities, knowledge and decision-making should take the lead.Furthermore, the most direct management decisions are taken at local level, and in this sense the most useulbiodiversity assessments are those based locally (Vermeulen and Koziell, 2002)

Vermeulen and Koziell (2002) identied a number o methods or integrating local and global values intobiodiversity assessments (see Box 4). They concluded that the real constraint to integrating local peoples valuesin biodiversity assessment is not technical. Instead it has to do with governancegiving people the space toparticipate in decision-making about an assessment and negotiate with other stakeholders when values dier orconfict.10

9 In April 2002, the Parties to the Convention committed themselves to achieve, by 2010, a signifcant reduction in the current rate o biodiversityloss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the beneft o all lie on Earth. This target wassubsequently endorsed by the World Summit on Sustainable Development and the United Nations General Assembly and was incorporated as a

new target under the Millennium Development Goals.10 Adams and Hutton (2007) argue, by contrast, that the major constraint is the disciplinary gul that exists between predominantly natural

science-trained conservation planners and predominantly social science-trained critics o conservation and which shapes the dierent capacityo natural and social scientists to engage with the politics o conservation.


30/173

17

Bo 4. Integrating local and global values in biodiversity assessent

Measures o local biodiversity values can be combined with national or global biodiversity values using methodsor integrating multiple measures, such as:

The categorisation method, which combines dierent criteria to give an overall value or categorisation. Forexample, the categorisation o hotspots combines criteria or endemism and threat. A local value, such asthe contribution to ood security, could be substituted or added. The categorisation method is commonlyused or combining multiple global conservation values, but has not been widely applied or co-assessingglobal and local values.

The equation method weights dierent measures according to their importance and combines them into asingle index.

The graph method plots out indices o dierent values separately on opposite axes, and hence keeps thetrade-os explicit.

However, without consensus among stakeholders about how measures should be derived, an index o biodiversitywill always be questioned. A principles-based approachusing a set o principles which are agreed by a widegroup o stakeholders but which allow local fexibilitymay be well suited to biodiversity assessments whichincorporate both global and local values. Principles provide the undamental questions that an assessmentneeds to answer, which is a good starting point or choosing what to measure.

Source: Adapted rom Vermeulen and Koziell (2002)


31/173

18

ChAPTER 3. GOOD GOVERNANCE3.1. Wat is governance and wy is it ailing biodiversity and livelioods?

Governance is about who decides and how. It has been dened as: the interactions among structures, processesand traditions that determine how power is exercised, how decisions are taken on issues o public concern, andhow citizens or other stakeholders have their say (Graham et al., 2003).

Governance encompasses policies, institutions, processes and power (Box 5). The nature o governance depends onthe institutional rules or decision-making and the capacity o people to participate in decision-making processesthat aect them. It also depends on the distribution o power, ie. the power to make decisions with or without theconsent o others.

Bo 5. Policies, institutions, processes and power

Policies: include ormal government policies, plans and strategies, and the laws that make them mandatory.Policy is about what organisations do, not just what they say they do, as there is oten a big gap between policypronouncements and action (Mayers and Bass, 1999). Inormal or hidden goals may be pursued just as muchas ormal policies. Policy is not conned to governmentsthe private sector and local organisations can alsomake policies.

Institutions: are oten conused with organisationsand the terms are sometimes used interchangeably.However, strictly speaking, organisations are not the same as institutions. Institutions are the rules, regulations

and other long established patterns o conduct or customs through which people interact with one another.Organisations are groups o individualsgovernment departments, local associations, etc.that administerthis set o ormal and inormal rules.

Processes: policies and laws are shaped by the processes through which they are developed, implemented andreviewed. Similarly, processes determine the way institutions operate and are shaped. Decisions are infuencedby both ormal policy and institutional processes and less obvious/hidden processes.

Power: power determines the degree o infuence that dierent actors can exert on policy and decision-making.Where policy is inert it is usually because powerul institutions are sitting on it (Mayers and Bass, 1999).Signicant changes in governance require changes in the exercise o power (Macqueen and Mayers, 2006).

Te policyaking process

Policy is as much about process (policymaking, implementing and reviewing) and politics as it is about content(policy statements and instruments, laws etc.). Policymaking is not neutral; it is an inherently political process.Political actors have the greatest eect on the policymaking process, rom internal (or institutional) actors such asgovernment structures, capacity, incentives and attitudes; to the political context o the country and the externalinfuence o international politics (Chowdhury et al., 2006). Policy is based on value judgementsthere is noabsolute right or wrong.

A recurring theme in the processes o policymaking and implementing is the way some people are involvedwhile others are not (Mayers and Bass, 1999). Policy is oten in the hands o rich and powerul actors (eg. elites,politicians, consultants and private interests). Civil society has an important role to play as a participant and as themain beneciary o policies, but tends to have little infuence over policy. In particular, local people, who have thepotential to deliver good natural resource management (ie. the knowledge and motivation), are oten marginalisedrom policy processes (Mayers and Bass, 1999).


32/173

19

Furthermore, policies and laws may be unevenly enorced to serve the interests o more powerul actors. Commonly,orest management laws which restrict orest access and use by local communities and give preerential accessto large-scale orestry and/or tourism enterprises, are applied more vigorously than measures that recognisecommunity rights (Tacconi, 2004; WRI et al., 2005).

Current governance routinely excludes poor people rom environmental assets and encourages the abuse o open-access assets (Macqueen and Mayers, 2006; WRI et al., 2005). In many cases, rural communities have become sodisempowered that they are no longer in charge o managing their natural resources, and are not trusted by thestate bureaucracies to do so (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2004a). Biodiversity conservation policies have tended toreinorce colonial processes o centralising resource control and weakening community stewardship.

Policy studies and guidelines on biodiversity planning have emphasised the importance o policy as a cyclical

learning process, inormed by on the ground realities and experience, and regularly reviewed to refect newevidence and perspectives (Mayers and Bass, 1999; WRI, 1995). Policy and plans should not be separated rompractice. Instead they should be linked to itwe need to unite decision-making with its consequences (Mayersand Bass, 1999).

In terms o priorities or uture work, policy studies have emphasised the need or action research which can helpestablish more inclusive governance processes:

the type o work now needed is collaboration on analysis and institutional change with those who are currently

marginalised rom the policy process, so that they can present their views and experience, and make their claims,

more eectively. In a sense, this means turning the conventional approach on its head, ie. we need more policy

process challenges or the powerul, and policy content analysis or the marginalised

(Mayers and Bass, 1999).

Unelpul yts about conservation and developent

Many policies and policymaking processes are guided by the conventional conservation paradigm, which assumesthat local people destroy biodiversity to meet their needs because they are poor (Farvar, 2006). This notion isoten linked to ears o population pressure, and mistrust and lack o understanding o local societies. It leads toresponses which alienate local people rom their resources, setting them against conservation eorts and orcingthem to poach wildlie, hence creating a sel-ullling prophecy. In some cases, such as Nepals Royal ChitwanNational Park, protective regimes persist because they are supported by elites who gain rom them (Thoms, 2006).Thus, while communities may be excluded rom resources in parks, commercial ventures may be allowed in.

Yet there is evidence to show that poor people in biodiversity rich areas are both able and motivated to conservebiodiversity when they are allowed to play an active role in shaping conservation initiatives and have secure rights

to resources. Experience over the last two decades also shows that poor people can and do adapt their resourcemanagement practices to conditions o resource degradation and rising population (Swiderska, 2004a; Reed,2001). While it is true in Arica, or example, that most o the armers who deorest are poor, it is ar rom clear thatArican armers deorest because they are poor. Recent research in Arica and elsewhere shows that market andpolicy changes are ar more important drivers o deorestation (Gutman, 2001). Furthermore, wealth rather thanpoverty is the main cause o both environmental problems and the persistence o poverty, by uelling excessiveconsumption o natural resources at the expense o local access (Weber, 2006; Swiderska, 2004a). The MAs ocuson ecosystem services or human wellbeing has started to shit the conventional paradigm o conservation rompeople to one o conservationorpeople.

Certain paradigms may become dominant and persist over time because they support the interests o more powerulgroups (ie. governments and elites), even i hard evidence or their apparent value is lacking. A growing body oevidence shows that much conventional wisdom on environmental changeeg. on overgrazing, desertication,

the wooduel crisis, rapid and recent removal o pristine orests, and natural resource degradation caused byrapid growth in populationmay be deeply misleading (Leach and Mearns, 1996). For example, while it has


33/173

20

always been thought that Guineas orest-savanna zone used to be completely orested and has been degraded byarmers, Leach and Fairhead (1994) provided evidence to show that many aspects o local arming and resource useserved to increase orest cover. Similarly, Brockington and Homewood (1996) ound that ears o soil erosion andenvironmental degradation by Aricans were exaggerated to meet political ends and justiy allocating more land towhite settlers. Box 6 urther illustrates this point, highlighting the controversy over the co-existence o pastoralistsand wildlie in Arica.

Bo 6. Pastoralists: ecological vandals or good stewards?

For many years, mainstream views have held that Arican pastoralists allow their livestock to overgraze and thattheir husbandry increases soil erosionthe so-called tragedy o the commons. Because they are assumed

to be dangerous to wildlie, pastoralists are oten excluded rom parks and reserves in order to protect theirresources and associated tourism and hunting industries (Brockington and Homewood, 1996).

The notion o limited carrying capacity is sometimes used to justiy the exclusion o pastoralists romwildlie protected areas (eg. in Arica and India). In the Ngorongoro Reserve in Tanzania, or example, thecarrying capacity concept was used to show that there were too many animals and people in the area andto justiy the eviction o people. The carrying capacity approach was, however, developed in North America,where conditions are airly stable and grazing pressure (and hence stocking levels) is the main limiting actoraecting the sustainability o plant ecosystems. By contrast, dryland ecosystems are much less uniorm andresource distribution is more aected by the unpredictable rainall rather than grazing pressure. For pastoralcommunities, the concept o being allowed to keep x number o livestock units in a given area is somewhatbizarre. They view carrying capacity dierentlyas opportunistic carrying capacity, based on high mobilityaccording to rainall, the use o mixed herds, social relations and negotiation to access resources. This response

to unpredictability has been overlooked by many policy and planning tools (Swiderska, 2003).

The development community has its own persistent paradigms that are equally unhelpul. The dominantneoliberal economic paradigm, or example, assumes that only national economic growth will reduce poverty,and that this will occur automatically over time through benets trickling down. This is the justication orunsustainable resource exploitation: to uel national economic growth regardless o impacts on local livelihoodsand biodiversity. However, while this model generates wealth or elites and middle classes, it oten does little tohelp the poorest and most vulnerable groups in society, who may be made worse o as their land and resourcesare taken away. Furthermore, it assumes that ree markets will deliver the airest outcome to society, without theneed or regulations to correct social and environmental ailures (Koziell, 2001). As well as generating many o thedirect drivers o biodiversity loss, this model has led to macro-economic and structural adjustment reorms, suchas the removal o agriculture subsidies, which have increased poverty and environmental degradation in Arica,

and have only served the interests o OECD countries (Koziell, 2001; MA, 2005a).

While there is much that can be learned rom traditional knowledge about, and approaches to, resourceconservation, so we can also learn rom dierent economic paradigms. While Western economic models promoteprivate accumulation o wealth and property or prot, traditional societies oten promote social equity andecological sustainability based on principles o reciprocity and collective custodianship. Traditional economieswhich oten exist alongside monetary economies can be vital or sustaining the livelihoods o the poorest groupsand biodiverse production systems (Marti and Pimbert, 2006). Yet, these inormal non-monetary economies basedon customary values are being eroded by dominant Western economic paradigms, and are rarely supported byeither development or conservation initiatives.

Te eclusionary protected area odel

The dominance o the paradigms described above has led to protected areas becoming central to global eorts orbiodiversity conservation. Today protected areas cover nearly 12% o the worlds land area (Chape et al., 2003) and14% o the wo

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	api-25975305
View:	227 times
Download:	0 times

Cernea Sociology for Development Projects

Documents