Noëlle F. Kümpel

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.

Accounting for the impact of conservation on human well-being

Conservationists are increasingly engaging with the concept of human well-being to improve the design and evaluation of their interventions. Since the convening of the influential Sarkozy Commission in 2009, development researchers have been refining conceptualizations and frameworks to understand and measure human well-being and are starting to converge on a common understanding of how best to do this. In conservation, the term human well-being is in widespread use, but there is a need for guidance on operationalizing it to measure the impacts of conservation interventions on people. We present a framework for understanding human well-being, which could be particularly useful in conservation. The framework includes 3 conditions; meeting needs, pursuing goals, and experiencing a satisfactory quality of life. We outline some of the complexities involved in evaluating the well-being effects of conservation interventions, with the understanding that well-being varies between people and over time and with the priorities of the evaluator. Key challenges for research into the well-being impacts of conservation interventions include the need to build up a collection of case studies so as to draw out generalizable lessons; harness the potential of modern technology to support well-being research; and contextualize evaluations of conservation impacts on well-being spatially and temporally within the wider landscape of social change. Pathways through the smog of confusion around the term well-being exist, and existing frameworks such as the Well-being in Developing Countries approach can help conservationists negotiate the challenges of operationalizing the concept. Conservationists have the opportunity to benefit from the recent flurry of research in the development field so as to carry out more nuanced and locally relevant evaluations of the effects of their interventions on human well-being. Consideración del Impacto de la Conservación sobre el Bienestar Humano Resumen Los conservacionistas cada vez más se comprometen con el concepto del bienestar humano para mejorar el diseño y la evaluación de sus intervenciones. Desde la convención de la influyente Comisión Sarkozy en 2009, los investigadores del desarrollo han estado refinando las conceptualizaciones y los marcos de trabajo para entender y medir el bienestar humano y están comenzando a convergir con un entendimiento común de cuál es la mejor forma de hacer esto. En la conservación el término bienestar humano tiene un uso amplio, pero existe la necesidad de la orientación en su operación para medir los impactos de las intervenciones de la conservación sobre la gente. Presentamos un marco de trabajo para entender el bienestar humano que podría ser útil particularmente en la conservación. El marco de trabajo incluye tres condiciones: cumplir con las necesidades, perseguir objetivos y experimentar una calidad satisfactoria de vida. Resumimos algunas de las complejidades involucradas en la evaluación de los efectos del bienestar de las intervenciones de la conservación con el entendimiento de que el bienestar varía entre la gente, en el tiempo y con las prioridades del evaluador. Los retos clave para la investigación de los impactos del bienestar de las intervenciones de la conservación incluyen la necesidad de crear una colección de estudios de caso para trazar lecciones generalizables: hacer uso del potencial de la tecnología moderna para apoyar la investigación del bienestar; y contextualizar espacial y temporalmente las evaluaciones de los impactos de la conservación sobre el bienestar dentro del marco más amplio del cambio social. Existen caminos que atraviesan la confusión que rodea al término bienestar, y los marcos de trabajo existentes, como el del acercamiento de Bienestar en Países en Desarrollo, pueden ayudar a los conservacionistas a negociar los obstáculos de la operación del concepto. Los conservacionistas tienen la oportunidad de beneficiarse del frenesí reciente de investigación en el campo del desarrollo para así realizar evaluaciones más matizadas y relevantes localmente de los efectos de sus intervenciones sobre el bienestar humano.

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.

Drivers of change in hunter offtake and hunting strategies in Sendje, Equatorial Guinea.

Economic development in Africa is expected to increase levels of bushmeat hunting through rising demand for meat and improved transport infrastructure. However, few studies have tracked long-term changes in hunter behavior as a means of testing this prediction. We evaluated changes in hunter behavior in a rural community in Equatorial Guinea over a period of rapid national economic growth, during which time road access to the regional capital greatly improved. We conducted offtake surveys (Supporting Information) over 3 7-week periods at the same time of year in 1998, 2003, and 2010 and conducted hunter and household interviews (Supporting Information) in 2003 and 2010. We tested whether relations existed among catch, hunting effort, hunting strategy, and income earned through hunting and other livelihoods in 2003 and 2010. Although village offtake increased from 1775 kg in 1998 to 4172 kg in 2003, it decreased in 2010 to 1361 kg. Aggregate catch per unit effort (i.e., number of carcasses caught per hunter and per trap) decreased from 2003 to 2010, and the majority of hunters reported a decrease in abundance of local fauna. Although these results are indicative of unsustainable hunting, cumulative changes in offtake and catch per unit effort were driven by a contraction in the total area hunted following an out-migration of 29 of the villages hunters, most of whom left to gain employment in the construction industry, after 2003. Hunters operating in both 2003 and 2010 hunted closer to the village because an increased abundance of elephants posed a danger and because they desired to earn income through other activities. Our study provides an example of national economic development contributing to a reduction in the intensity and extent of hunting.

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.

Indicators for wild animal offtake: Methods and case study for African mammals and birds

Unsustainable exploitation of wild animals is one of the greatest threats to biodiversity and to millions of people depending on wild meat for food and income. The international conservation and development community has committed to implementing plans for sustainable use of natural resources and has requested development of monitoring systems of bushmeat offtake and trade. Although offtake monitoring systems and indicators for marine species are more developed, information on harvesting terrestrial species is limited. Building on approaches developed to monitor exploitation of fisheries and population trends, we have proposed two novel indicators for harvested terrestrial species: the mean body mass indicator (MBMI) assessing whether hunters are relying increasingly on smaller species over time, as a measure of defaunation, by tracking body mass composition of harvested species within samples across various sites and dates; and the offtake pressure indicator (OPI) as a measure of harvesting pressure on groups of wild animals within a region by combining multiple time series of the number of harvested individuals across species. We applied these two indicators to recently compiled data for West and Central African mammals and birds. Our exploratory analyses show that the MBMI of harvested mammals decreased but that of birds rose between 1966/1975 and 2010. For both mammals and birds the OPI increased substantially during the observed time period. Given our results, time-series data and information collated from multiple sources are useful to investigate trends in body mass of hunted species and offtake volumes. In the absence of comprehensive monitoring systems, we suggest that the two indicators developed in our study are adequate proxies of wildlife offtake, which together with additional data can inform conservation policies and actions at regional and global scales.

No new recipes for bushmeat

Bushmeat is the new crisis in conservation. Work preAt the broad scale diCerent sets of factors have been emphasized. Firstly, inexorable global processes: the sented during the the 16th Annual Meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology in Canterbury, UK, in July 2002, increases in human populations, the reach of roads and market economies, and technology. Secondly, dysoutlined the scale and immediacy of the problem, and began to illustrate some of the driving economic factors. functional national or regional economies that, in the absence of market access or capital for agricultural alterAlthough such cataloguing is necessary for advocacy, a lot of time has been spent eloquently demonstrating natives, drive rural inhabitants to hunting. An exclusive focus on either can produce opposing conclusions. We what is already fairly obvious. If you were looking for evidence at the conference that conservation science had must determine their relative influences and interactions in order to have a clear voice in the policy debate. focused on a new problem and derived a novel solution, you would have been disappointed. No clear framework We also need a decision-making framework at the local level. It is impossible to maximize two properties, for a solution was oCered, other than protected areas and bans on hunting endangered species. This is hardly so we need to decide whether the needs of wildlife or local people are the priority or, more realistically, where revolutionary – if anything it is counter-revolutionary. But this is missing the point. The ‘bushmeat crisis’ is each is pre-eminent. In the case of the former, we cannot ignore the need for pristine reserves and enforcement, not a new problem, it is an old problem, a manifestation of the problem that has shaped the history of man’s or the need to remind donors of this. For the latter we must work more closely with development agencies and interaction with the environment: ‘... the commons, if justifiable at all, is justifiable only under conditions of ensure that they understand the biological realities. Modern human populations cannot be sustained by the low population density. As the human population has increased, the commons has had to be abandoned in harvesting of wild animals. Open-access harvesting has not been sustainable in the planet’s most productive one aspect after another.’ (Hardin, 1968) The key facts aired at the symposia were not new ecosystems (Ludwig et al., 1993), and will certainly not be in the case of the relatively low-productivity of large ones: there is a population density limit to subsistence hunting in tropical forests of about one person per animals in tropical forests. We have to rationally assess where diCerent approaches sq km, and in a terrestrial source-sink system the source probably needs to be about seven times the size of the are appropriate, and identify the data requirements for designing local conservation projects. We can only do sink. Clearly hunting in natural ecosystems is only sustainable if it is both regulated and exclusive. There this in the context of a sound theoretical framework that involves economics at least as much as it does biology. is no novel technical solution. The basic toolkit for changing behaviour has long been known: the stick, Honest assessment of the limitations and appropriateness of each of our tools must replace factional devotion the carrot and the diversion, or in conservation terms, enforcement, direct payment and integrated conservation to a single one, and we must be honest about the prospects for bushmeat harvesting being both sustainand deveopment. What are needed are cross-disciplinary models for deciding which tools to apply in which able and a major component of a regional economy. ‘‘The truth that is suppressed by friends is the readiest situations, rather than a legion of anecdotes supporting a particular approach in a particular setting. weapon of the enemy.’’ (Robert Louis Stevenson, quoted by Hardin, 1968).

Non-invasive genetic identification confirms the presence of the Endangered okapi Okapia johnstoni south-west of the Congo River

The okapi Okapia johnstoni, a rainforest giraffid endemic to the Democratic Republic of Congo, was recategorized as Endangered on the IUCN Red List in 2013. Historical records and anecdotal reports suggest that a disjunct population of okapi may have occurred south-west of the Congo River but the current distribution and status of the okapi in this region are not well known. Here we describe the use of non-invasive genetic identification for this species and assess the success of species identification from dung in the wild, which varied throughout the range. This variation is probably attributable to varying okapi population densities and/or different sample collection strategies across the okapis distribution. Okapi were confirmed to occur south-west of the Congo River, in scattered localities west of the Lomami River. We demonstrated that non-invasive genetic methods can provide information on the distribution of cryptic, uncommon species that is difficult to obtain by other methods. Further investigation is required to genetically characterize the okapi across its range and to investigate the biogeographical processes that have led to the observed distribution of okapi and other fauna in the region.

The role of wildlife for food security in Central Africa: A threat to biodiversity?

Meat from wild terrestrial or semi-terrestrial animals, termed „bushmeat‟, is a significant source of animal protein in Central African countries, and a crucial component of food security and livelihoods in rural areas. Estimates of bushmeat consumption across the Congo Basin range between 1 million tonnes (Wilkie and Carpenter 1999) and 5 million tonnes (Fa et al. 2003) and harvest rates are estimated to range from 23 to 897 kg/km 2 /year (Nasi et al. 2008). Many sustainability assessments focusing on tropical forest wildlife in the region have warned about the increasing unsustainability of hunting and associated ecological impacts (e.g. examples within Bennett and Robinson, 2000).The term “value chain” is useful to understand the activities involved in bringing a product from the forest, through processing and production, to delivery to final consumers and ultimately disposal (Kaplinsky & morris, 2000). Value chain analysis is a conceptual framework for mapping and categorizing the economic, social and environmental processes. It helps to understand how and where enterprises and institutions are positioned in chains, and to identify opportunities and possible leverage points for upgrading. This analysis encompasses the organization, coordination, equity, power relationships, linkages and governance between organizations and actors. Photo 7.1: Kola nuts (Cola acuminata) for sale in a market in Kisangani, DRC

Ecology. 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.