William M. Adams

Biodiversity Conservation: Challenges Beyond 2010

Biodiversity Convention In October 2010, the Convention on Biological Diversity will meet to assess the current condition of global biodiversity and to propose and agree on priorities for its future conservation. In this context, Rands et al. (p. 1298; see the News Focus section; see the cover) review recent patterns of biodiversity conservation, highlighting successes, as well as current and future threats. They argue that biodiversity should be treated as a public good, with responsibility for its conservation integrated across sectors of society and government, rather than be confined to the business of environmental agencies, and review the conditions under which this goal might be achieved. The continued growth of human populations and of per capita consumption have resulted in unsustainable exploitation of Earth’s biological diversity, exacerbated by climate change, ocean acidification, and other anthropogenic environmental impacts. We argue that effective conservation of biodiversity is essential for human survival and the maintenance of ecosystem processes. Despite some conservation successes (especially at local scales) and increasing public and government interest in living sustainably, biodiversity continues to decline. Moving beyond 2010, successful conservation approaches need to be reinforced and adequately financed. In addition, however, more radical changes are required that recognize biodiversity as a global public good, that integrate biodiversity conservation into policies and decision frameworks for resource production and consumption, and that focus on wider institutional and societal changes to enable more effective implementation of policy.

One Hundred Questions of Importance to the Conservation of Global Biological Diversity

We identified 100 scientific questions that, if answered, would have the greatest impact on conservation practice and policy. Representatives from 21 international organizations, regional sections and working groups of the Society for Conservation Biology, and 12 academics, from all continents except Antarctica, compiled 2291 questions of relevance to conservation of biological diversity worldwide. The questions were gathered from 761 individuals through workshops, email requests, and discussions. Voting by email to short-list questions, followed by a 2-day workshop, was used to derive the final list of 100 questions. Most of the final questions were derived through a process of modification and combination as the workshop progressed. The questions are divided into 12 sections: ecosystem functions and services, climate change, technological change, protected areas, ecosystem management and restoration, terrestrial ecosystems, marine ecosystems, freshwater ecosystems, species management, organizational systems and processes, societal context and change, and impacts of conservation interventions. We anticipate that these questions will help identify new directions for researchers and assist funders in directing funds.

Understanding and managing conservation conflicts.

Conservation conflicts are increasing and need to be managed to minimise negative impacts on biodiversity, human livelihoods, and human well-being. Here, we explore strategies and case studies that highlight the long-term, dynamic nature of conflicts and the challenges to their management. Conflict management requires parties to recognise problems as shared ones, and engage with clear goals, a transparent evidence base, and an awareness of trade-offs. We hypothesise that conservation outcomes will be less durable when conservationists assert their interests to the detriment of others. Effective conflict management and long-term conservation benefit will be enhanced by better integration of the underpinning social context with the material impacts and evaluation of the efficacy of alternative conflict management approaches.

Farmer adaptation, change and 'crisis' in the Sahel.

Abstract Perceptions of a continuing crisis in managing Sahelian resources are rooted in five dimensions of the Sahel Drought of 1972–1974 as it was understood at the time: crises in rainfall (drought), food supply, livestock management, environmental degradation, and household coping capabilities. A closer examination of household livelihood and farming systems shows that adaptive strategies have been evolved in response to each of these imperatives. Illustrations are provided from recent research in north–east Nigeria. A systematic understanding of indigenous adaptive capabilities can provide a basis for policies enabling a reduction of dependency on aid assistance in the Sahel.

Back to the barriers? Changing narratives in biodiversity conservation

Abstract The dominant approach to conservation in the 20th century was the establishment of protected areas from which people were excluded. However, in the 1980s, decentralised, community-based approaches to biodiversity conservation and natural resource management began to spread rapidly, especially in southern Africa. From the early 1990s, there has been a growing divide between proponents of community-based approaches to conservation (particularly community-based natural resource management, CBNRM) and those advocating a return to more traditional preservationist approaches to biodiversity conservation. Here we examine the growth of the community narrative and the subsequent revival of what we call the ‘back to the barriers’ movement. We discuss the importance of various actors and sets of policy ideas to this revival in Africa. Changes in narratives have had profound impacts upon conservation and natural resource management, livelihood strategies and political processes. We suggest that policy debate needs to become less formulaic if outcomes are to be positive.

Payment for Ecosystem Services and the Challenge of Saving Nature

In a seminal and underappreciated book, Green Imperialism, Grove (1995) explains the rise of a global environmental consciousness as a result of European colonial expansion. Grove details how, by the mid-seventeenth century, “. . . a coherent and relatively organized awareness of the ecological impact of the demands of emergent capitalism and colonial rule started to develop, to grow into a fully fledged understanding of the limited nature of the earth’s natural resources and to stimulate a concomitant awareness of a need for conservation” (p. 6). In particular he documents the growing belief that loss of forests, particularly in island settings, could negatively affect shipping, agriculture, and even the local climate. The colonial powers awoke to the importance of what today would be called ecosystem services and set about trying to restore them and diminish their further degradation. In recent decades humankind’s reliance on the natural world has increasingly been expressed through the concept of ecosystem services. In the time period covered by Grove, ecosystem services were seen as vital for maintaining the economic output of the colonies. Today they are judged important as a way of framing conservation imperatives to convince humans of the value of the natural world. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment began a rapid shift in the concept of ecosystem services from an academic backwater to the mainstream of conservation and environmental policy. Nature noted how recent developments “seem to herald ecosystem services entry into mainstream scientific and political thinking” (Nature 2009:764). Ecosystem services have now become the central metaphor within which to express humanity’s need for the rest of living nature. As the Global Environment Outlook-4 report rightly points out, “As the basis for all ecosystem services, and the foundation for truly sustainable development, biodiversity plays fundamental roles in maintaining and enhancing the well-being of the world’s more than 6.7 billion people, rich and poor, rural and urban alike” (UNEP 2008:160). Important research is being undertaken to establish empirically the value of ecosystem services and their distribution in space and time. The concept of ecosystem services increasingly structures the way conservationists think, the ways they explain the importance of nature to often skeptical policy makers, and the ways they propose to promote its conservation. Is this a good thing? Not entirely. There are risks to the current enthusiasm for the ecosystem services concept. Conservation has a history of placing great faith in new ideas and approaches that appear to offer dramatic solutions to humanity’s chronic disregard for nature (e.g., sustainable development, community conservation, sustainable use, wilderness), only to become disillusioned with them a few years later. The payment for ecosystem services framework fits this model disturbingly well. Like the seductive ideas that preceded it, it is being adopted with great speed, and often without much critical discussion, across the spectrum of conservation policy debate and developing a life of its own independent of its promulgators. There is particular risk with the idea of payments for ecosystem services as an effective way of achieving conservation. The argument goes that people depend on the services provided by ecosystems and that the way to ensure their continued provision is to pay for them— thus ensuring services are sustained and the species and ecosystems providing the services are conserved. Arguments for the importance of conserving ecosystem services and value of payment for ecosystem services as a tool for conservation are typically compelling and carefully crafted. Yet we are worried about the approach of payment for ecosystem services as a conservation strategy. In the spirit of constructive criticism, we outline here seven problems with ecosystem services. If these are addressed, the role of payment for ecosystems services in conservation will be clearer and arguments for conservation itself made stronger. If not, all the research and policy enthusiasm for ecosystem services may turn sour, in the process costing time and invaluable support. First, in a world of relentless pursuit of economic logic, there is a real risk that economic arguments about services valued by humans will overwrite and outweigh noneconomic justifications for conservation. As many advocates for the approach point out, payments for ecosystem services should be one of a set of tools used in pursuit of conservation. Multiple arguments for conservation are

Acknowledging Conservation Trade‐Offs and Embracing Complexity

There is a growing recognition that conservation often entails trade-offs. A focus on trade-offs can open the way to more complete consideration of the variety of positive and negative effects associated with conservation initiatives. In analyzing and working through conservation trade-offs, however, it is important to embrace the complexities inherent in the social context of conservation. In particular, it is important to recognize that the consequences of conservation activities are experienced, perceived, and understood differently from different perspectives, and that these perspectives are embedded in social systems and preexisting power relations. We illustrate the role of trade-offs in conservation and the complexities involved in understanding them with recent debates surrounding REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation), a global conservation policy designed to create incentives to reduce tropical deforestation. Often portrayed in terms of the multiple benefits it may provide: poverty alleviation, biodiversity conservation, and climate-change mitigation; REDD may involve substantial trade-offs. The gains of REDD may be associated with a reduction in incentives for industrialized countries to decrease carbon emissions; relocation of deforestation to places unaffected by REDD; increased inequality in places where people who make their livelihood from forests have insecure land tenure; loss of biological and cultural diversity that does not directly align with REDD measurement schemes; and erosion of community-based means of protecting forests. We believe it is important to acknowledge the potential trade-offs involved in conservation initiatives such as REDD and to examine these trade-offs in an open and integrative way that includes a variety of tools, methods, and points of view.

Carbon, forests and the REDD paradox.

The institutional arrangements governing forests will be a critical factor in reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) as part of the global effort to mitigate climate change. A growing body of empirical research demonstrates how local forest governance can be as, if not more, effective than centralized state-based regimes. Local forest governance can secure improvements in multiple forest outcomes such as biomass and carbon storage and livelihoods contributions for the poor, and it can do so at lower cost than is possible through centralized governance. Many national governments have implicitly recognized these findings in their pursuit of decentralized forest governance and in strengthening local rights and capacities to use and manage forests. However, such reforms are often politically resisted, particularly where the value of forest resources is high and central government bodies are able to capture the majority of benefits. Ongoing negotiations related to the design and delivery of REDD policy and practice must take into account both the importance of local forest governance arrangements and the political–economic barriers to devolving secure rights over forests to local communities. These political dimensions of forest tenure and policy create a paradox for REDD: increasing the value of forest resources through global carbon markets without attending to local governance and rights will create political incentives towards centralized governance, which could lead to greater forest loss and lower forest-related benefits for the poor.

Who is on the Gorilla's Payroll? Claims on Tourist Revenue From a Ugandan National Park

Abstract This paper discusses the competing interests in revenues derived from visitor wildlife tourism based on viewing the mountain gorilla ( Gorilla gorilla beringei ) in Mgahinga National Park, Uganda. Financial flows to local communities do reduce their sense of grievance at the park’s creation, but do not compensate them for the costs of park creation. Different interests within and outside Uganda compete for wildlife tourism revenue and limit its capacity to fund the direct and indirect costs of gorilla conservation. The creation of multiscale multistakeholder partnerships for conservation built on revenue-sharing is a daunting institutional challenge.

Agricultural Intensification and Flexibility in the Nigerian Sahel

This paper discusses evidence of agricultural intensification in the Sahelian zone of north-east Nigeria, drawing on data from a five-year monitoring study of soils, cultivars and livelihoods across environmental and demographic gradients. The paper stresses the importance of flexibility in ecological management and in economic activities as components of rural livelihood strategies. In the villages studied, the intensity of agricultural operations decreases with annual rainfall amount. However, flexibility in options within both cropping systems and off-farm employment, is greatest in the drier villages. The nature of this flexibility and its relevance to debates about intensification are discussed.