Dilys Roe

Biodiversity Conservation and the Millennium Development Goals

Any near-term gains in reducing extreme poverty will be maintained only if environmental sustainability is also achieved. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are designed to inspire efforts to improve peoples lives by, among other priorities, halving extreme poverty by 2015 (1). Analogously, concern about global decline in biodiversity and degradation of ecosystem services (2) gave rise in 1992 to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The CBD target “to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss” was incorporated into the MDGs in 2002. Our lack of progress toward the 2010 target (3, 4) could undermine achievement of the MDGs and poverty reduction in the long term. With increasing global challenges, such as population growth, climate change, and overconsumption of ecosystem services, we need further integration of the poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation agendas.

The origins and evolution of the conservation-poverty debate: a review of key literature, events and policy processes

Within the last few years three key concerns have come to dominate the conservation-poverty debate: (1) the activities and accountability of big international conserva- tion NGOs, and their impacts on local communities; (2) the increasingly protectionist focus of conservation policy and the implications for communities resident in and around protected areas, in particular regarding involuntary displacements and evictions; (3) the lack of attention to biodiversity conservation on the development agenda, with the current focus on poverty reduction. The roots of these different strands of the debate lie in much older discussions of the links between environment and development. There have been periods of convergence, especially around issues of sustainable development, participation and decentral- ization during the 1980s and 1990s. There have also been periods of divergence, in particular the disenchantment with community-based approaches to conservation and the prioritization of poverty over environment, during the 1990s and 2000s. Reactions to the outcomes of the 2003 World Parks Congress brought the three strands of the modern debate to a head. Ongoing discussions around these strands continue at a different pace but the debate appears to be moving fastest on biodiversitys place within the development agenda, although concerns over biodiversity remain marginal compared to the current focus on climate change. But it is within the climate change agenda, and particularly the escalation of discussions around reduced emissions from deforestation, that the next formulations of the conservation-poverty debate are likely to develop.

Poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation: rebuilding the bridges

137 Has biodiversity ‘all but disappeared from the global dialogue on sustainable development’ as Sanderson & Redford (2003) fear? Here we explore the poverty reduction imperative that dominates the current agendas of most international development agencies, question the absence of biodiversity conservation from this agenda, and debate the role of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals in building bridges between the two. Sanderson & Redford are not wholly correct in lamenting the loss of biodiversity from the sustainable development agenda. Indeed, biodiversity was one of five priority issues singled out for attention at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development. What has happened, however, is that the pace of the sustainable development dialogue has not been fast enough for developing country governments and for international development agencies, and a parallel agenda has emerged in recent years to address an internationally recognized imperative of poverty reduction. This is articulated internationally in the set of eight United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and nationally in the World Bank-driven process to develop national poverty reduction strategies in low income countries. There are many limitations associated with current poverty reduction efforts, as Sanderson & Redford high

Protecting the future: Carbon, forests, protected areas and local livelihoods

Abstract The current proposals on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries being discussed under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) could have significant implications for biodiversity conservation and for forest-dependent livelihoods. In the post-2012 period, developing countries could receive financial benefits in return for decreasing their greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD). Protected areas can act as a case study for REDD: lessons can be learnt from their success or otherwise in reducing deforestation and supporting local livelihoods. Depending upon the exact mechanisms decided between and within countries, protected areas could have a role to play in reducing national-scale deforestation, through strengthening existing forest protected areas and/or declaring new areas. Overall, protected areas are effective at limiting deforestation, but there are exceptions. Their track record in supporting livelihoods is more variable. The early indications are that community-managed and indigenous reserves are often effective in achieving both goals, but that biodiversity conservation is not necessarily such a high priority within these areas. Further research into the most effective management and governance frameworks for achieving goals on carbon emissions, biodiversity and communities, and the extent to which protected areas reduce (or merely displace) deforestation within national boundaries would be useful in informing REDD implementation.

Review of the evidence base for ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation to climate change

BackgroundEcosystem-based approaches for adaptation (EbA) integrate the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services into an overall strategy for helping people adapt to climate change. To date, insight into these approaches has often been based on reports from isolated anecdotal case studies. Although these are informative, and provide evidence that people are using ecosystems to adapt, they provide rather limited insight in terms of measuring and evaluating the effectiveness of EbA, especially when compared with technical or structural adaptation interventions. The body of scientific evidence indicating how effective such approaches are is lacking in some aspects. Where evidence does exist it is often dispersed across a range of related fields, such as natural resource management, disaster risk reduction and agroecology. To date, there has been little attempt to systematically assemble and analyse this evidence. Therefore, the current state of evidence regarding the merits or otherwise of EbA is unknown and it has not been possible to identify prevailing knowledge gaps to inform research and analysis, which will enable policymakers to compare EbA with other adaptation options.MethodsThis protocol details the methodology to be used to conduct a systematic map of peer-reviewed published journal papers and a limited selection of grey literature, to give a methodical overview of the state of the evidence base for EbA effectiveness, and to identify the current knowledge gaps. It addresses the following question: What is the state of the evidence base regarding the ability of ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation to help people adapt to the impacts of climate change?

Reframing the concept of alternative livelihoods.

Abstract Alternative livelihood project (ALP) is a widely used term for interventions that aim to reduce the prevalence of activities deemed to be environmentally damaging by substituting them with lower impact livelihood activities that provide at least equivalent benefits. ALPs are widely implemented in conservation, but in 2012, an International Union for Conservation of Nature resolution called for a critical review of such projects based on concern that their effectiveness was unproven. We focused on the conceptual design of ALPs by considering their underlying assumptions. We placed ALPs within a broad category of livelihood‐focused interventions to better understand their role in conservation and their intended impacts. We dissected 3 flawed assumptions about ALPs based on the notions of substitution, the homogenous community, and impact scalability. Interventions based on flawed assumptions about peoples needs, aspirations, and the factors that influence livelihood choice are unlikely to achieve conservation objectives. We therefore recommend use of a sustainable livelihoods approach to understand the role and function of environmentally damaging behaviors within livelihood strategies; differentiate between households in a community that have the greatest environmental impact and those most vulnerable to resource access restrictions to improve intervention targeting; and learn more about the social–ecological system within which household livelihood strategies are embedded. Rather than using livelihood‐focused interventions as a direct behavior‐change tool, it may be more appropriate to focus on either enhancing the existing livelihood strategies of those most vulnerable to conservation‐imposed resource access restrictions or on use of livelihood‐focused interventions that establish a clear link to conservation as a means of building good community relations. However, we recommend that the term ALP be replaced by the broader term livelihood‐focused intervention. This avoids the implicit assumption that alternatives can fully substitute for natural resource‐based livelihood activities.

What are the impacts of nature conservation interventions on human well-being: a systematic map protocol

BackgroundInternational policy has sought to emphasize and strengthen the link between the conservation of natural ecosystems and human development. Furthermore, international conservation organizations have broadened their objectives beyond nature-based goals to recognize the contribution of conservation interventions in sustaining ecosystem services upon which human populations are dependent. While many indices have been developed to measure various human well-being domains, the strength of evidence to support the effects, both positive and negative, of conservation interventions on human well-being, is still unclear.Methods/DesignThis protocol describes the methodology for examining the research question: What are the impacts of nature conservation interventions on different domains of human well-being in developing countries? Using systematic mapping, this study will scope and identify studies that measure the impacts of nature conservation interventions on human well-being at local to regional scales. The primary objective of this study is to synthesize the state and distribution of the existing evidence base linking conservation and human well-being. In addition, a theory of change approach will be used to identify and characterize the causal linkages between conservation and human well-being, with attention on those studies that examine the role of ecosystem services. Key trends among the resulting studies will be synthesized and the range of studies organized and presented in a graphical matrix illustrating the relationships between types of interventions and types of outcomes. Results of the study are intended to help conservation and development practitioners and the academic community to improve research studies and conservation practices in developing countries in order to achieve both conservation and human well-being outcomes.

Are alternative livelihood projects effective at reducing local threats to specified elements of biodiversity and/or improving or maintaining the conservation status of those elements?

BackgroundAlternative livelihood projects are used by a variety of organisations as a tool for achieving biodiversity conservation. However, despite characterising many conservation approaches, very little is known about what impacts (if any) alternative livelihood projects have had on biodiversity conservation, as well as what determines the relative success or failure of these interventions. Reflecting this concern, Motion 145 was passed at the Vth IUCN World Conservation Congress in 2012 calling for a critical review of alternative livelihood projects and their contribution to biodiversity conservation. This systematic map and review intends to contribute to this critical review and provide an overview for researchers, policy makers and practitioners of the current state of the evidence base.MethodsFollowing an a priori protocol, systematic searches for relevant studies were conducted using the bibliographic databases AGRICOLA, AGRIS, CAB Abstracts, Scopus, and Web of Knowledge, as well as internet searches of Google, Google Scholar, and subject specific and institutional websites. In addition, a call for literature was issued among relevant research networks. The titles, abstracts and full texts of the captured studies were assessed using inclusion criteria for the systematic map and the systematic review, respectively. An Excel spreadsheet was used to record data from each study and to provide a systematic map of the evidence for the effectiveness of alternative livelihood studies. The studies that met additional criteria to be included in the systematic review were described in more detail through a narrative synthesis.ResultsFollowing full text screening, 97 studies were included in the systematic map covering 106 projects using alternative livelihood interventions. Just 22 of these projects met our additional criteria for inclusion in the systematic review, but one project was removed from the detailed narrative synthesis following critical appraisal. The 21 included projects included reports of positive, neutral and negative conservation outcomes.ConclusionsOur results show that there has been an extensive investment in alternative livelihood projects, yet the structure and results of most of these projects have not been documented in a way that they can be captured using standardised search processes. Either this is because there has been little reporting on the outcomes of these projects, or that post-project monitoring is largely absent. The implications of this review for policy, management and future research are provided in relation to this evidence gap.

Which components or attributes of biodiversity influence which dimensions of poverty

BackgroundThere is an explicit assumption in international policy statements that biodiversity can help in efforts to tackle global poverty. This systematic map was stimulated by an interest in better understanding the evidence behind this assumption by disaggregating the terms and asking - as our review question - which components or attributes of biodiversity influence which dimensions of poverty?MethodsWe employed a search strategy that covered peer-reviewed and grey literature. Relevant studies included in the map were those that described an interaction by poor people with biodiversity in non-OECD countries and documented some kind of contribution (positive or negative) to different aspects of their well-being.ResultsA total of 387 studies were included in the final systematic map. Of these 248 met our additional criteria that studies should include a measure of the contribution to poverty alleviation. The studies were widely distributed geographically. Ecological distribution was less well spread, however, with the largest number of studies focussed on forests. We found studies addressing 12 different dimensions of poverty/well-being – although the most commonly studied was income. Similarly we found studies addressing all levels of biodiversity from genes to ecosystems. The largest number of studies was focussed on groups of resources – particularly non-timber forest products. In most cases, abundance was the attribute that made biodiversity important for poverty alleviation/well-being, while diversity was the least frequently noted attribute.ConclusionsThe map highlights a number of apparent gaps in the evidence base. Very few studies documented any causal link between use of biodiversity and an impact on poverty. In the majority of the studies biodiversity was framed in terms of its value as a resource – in the form of specific goods that can be used to generate tangible benefits such as cash, food fuel. Very few studies explored the underpinning role of biodiversity in ecosystem service delivery for poverty alleviation, and fewer investigated the benefits of diversity as a form of insurance or adaptive capacity. This is where we suggest research should be prioritised.

Does the gender composition of forest and fishery management groups affect resource governance and conservation outcomes: a systematic map protocol

BackgroundIn the fields of environmental governance and biodiversity conservation, there is a growing awareness that gender has an influence on resource use and management. Several studies argue that empowering women in resource governance can lead to beneficial outcomes for resource sustainability and biodiversity conservation. Yet how robust is the evidence to support this claim? Here we focus on the forestry and fisheries sectors to answer the primary question: What is the evidence that the gender composition of forest and fishery management groups affects resource governance and conservation outcomes? Our objective is to produce a systematic map of the evidence highlighting, inter alia, the geographic distribution and quality of the evidence, the consistency and robustness of the findings, and where further research is needed.Methods/designThis protocol provides the details of the methodology. The search terms used to identify relevant articles were developed in an iterative process using the phraseology of the primary question, Boolean operators, and a list of synonyms for each term. The search terms will be used to identify relevant articles in CAB Abstracts, Scopus, AGRIS, AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, and Google. A test library of 12 articles will ensure that the search captures the relevant literature. Searches will be in English but will not be restricted by publication date. The websites of 22 international organisations with a known interest in gender-related issues will be screened for relevant documents. The gender-focussed researchers at large conservation NGOs, the members of the Poverty and Conservation Learning Group, and the members of the Gender and Environment Working Group will be invited to submit relevant documents. The list of references of included articles will be screened to identify other relevant articles in a ‘backwards snowballing’ approach. The inclusion criteria are that an article refers to women or gender, forests or fisheries, a resource management group, a quantitative comparison, and an environmental governance or biodiversity conservation outcome in a non-OECD country. A data extraction template with 27 variables will be used to assess the included articles. The output will be a narrative report with descriptive statistics and an evidence-gap map.