Biological Resource Management - Semantic Scholar · Biological Resource Management — Integrating...

B I O D I V E R S I T Y S E R I E S

Biological ResourceManagementIntegrating BiodiversityConcerns in RuralDevelopment Projectsand Programs

PAPER NO. 85

Robin GrimbleMartyn Laidlaw

January 2002

Prepared by the Natural Resources Institute (NRI) for theEnvironment and Rural Departments of the World Bank,with funding from the Department for InternationalDevelopment (DFID), United Kingdom.

Papers in this series are not formal publications of the World Bank. They are circulated to encourage thought and discussion. The useand citation of this paper should take this into account. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed tothe World Bank. Copies are available from the Environment Department, The World Bank, Room MC-5-126.

Biological ResourceManagementIntegrating Biodiversity Concernsin RuralDevelopment Projectsand Programs

Robin GrimbleMartyn Laidlaw

January 2002

THE WORLD BANK ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT

The International Bank for Reconstructionand Development/THE WORLD BANK1818 H Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A.

Manufactured in the United States of AmericaFirst printing December 2001

DFID Department forInternationalDevelopment

[email protected]

Public Enquiry Point: 0845 300 4100From outside the UK: +44 1355 84 312

iiiBiodiversity Series

Contents

FOREWORD v

PREFACE vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xi

Chapter 1Introduction 1

1.1 Background 11.2 The challenge 11.3 Human-centred perspective 21.4 Target audience and paper structure 3

Chapter 2Conceptual Framework 5

2.1 Clarifying definitions 52.2 Disturbance and change 62.3 Bioresource values 72.4 The distribution of values 8

Chapter 3Strategies and Approaches to Conservation 11

3.1 Historical trends 113.2 Fortress conservation 123.3 Community-based initiatives 123.4 Conservation outside protected areas 143.5 The current paradigm 16

Chapter 4Improving Project Design 19

4.1 Summary of the argument 194.2 Barriers to progress 204.3 A framework for action 20

iv Environment Department Papers

Biological Resource Management — Integrating Biodiversity Concerns in Rural Development Projects and Programs

BOXES

1.1 The value of bioresources to local people 32.1 The science of biodiversity 52.2 An economic valuation of bioresources 72.3 Different local perceptions of the use value of bioresources 93.1 Uneven participation and success in CAMPFIRE 143.2 A successful example of community-based conservation 143.3 Current policies and procedures towards biodiversity in the World Bank 153.4 The effect of integrated pest management on biodiversity 163.5 Lake Tanganyika: An example of complex stakeholder interests and conflicts 173.6 Lessons for development from conservation experience in the U.K. 174.1 An example of good practice: Reconciling biodiversity and developmental interests in

Ghana’s wetlands 23

FIGURES

4.1 Process for identifying and understanding bioresource problems from local perspectives andpreparing rural development projects with bioresource linkages 21

4.2 The people-ecosystem web: A simplified illustration of issues, questions,and interactions 22

TABLES

2.1 Three land-use models on the disturbance continuum 62.2 The economic values, benefits, and beneficiaries of bioresources 8

Step 1. Analysing the system 20Step 2. Developing a vision and rationale for action 22Step 3. Implementation and feedback 22A caveat 22

4.4 Concluding thoughts 23

Notes 25

References 27

vBiodiversity Series

Foreword

The idea for this study originated during mytenure as Chief of the Land, Water, andNatural Resources Division of the WorldBank’s Environment Department. It arose outof plans for a World Bank Handbook onNatural Habitats and Ecosystem Managementand long-standing collaboration between theBank’s Environment Department and theNatural Resources Institute (NRI). The studywas generously funded by the NaturalResources and Advisory Department of theDepartment for International Development(DFID) of the UK within the framework of itscollaboration with multilateral agencies. RobinGrimble of NRI managed the study throughout.

The study examines the challenges that need tobe addressed if we are to control environmentaldamage in the development process and sustainthe essential contributions of biodiversity toecosystem functioning and thereby people’slivelihoods and rural development. Thepurpose is to identify ways by whichbiodiversity conservation can be mainstreamedin the planning activities and processes ofnational governments and developmentagencies such as the World Bank.

The primary focus of the study is the planningof rural development projects outsideprotected areas but it also concerns questionsof biodiversity management at strategic andpolicy levels removed from the front line. Thus,apart from new projects and programmes, thestudy aims also to contribute to the develop-ment of country assistance strategies (CASs),national environmental action plans (NEAPS),sectoral investment programmes, and policydevelopment more generally, both inside andoutside the Bank.

The first drafts of the papers were presented tothe World Bank and DFID in June 1998. Themain findings were later presented (January1999) at an Environmental Departmentworkshop and subsequently reviewed by amulti-disciplinary peer review panel establishedby the Bank (November 1999). The papers werefurther discussed and revised to constitute thispublication.

Colin ReesChief, 1993–98

Land, Water, and Natural Habitats DivisionEnvironment Department

viiBiodiversity Series

This study was commissioned by theEnvironment Department of the World Bankand funded by the British Department forInternational Development (DFID). It arose outof plans for a World Bank Handbook on NaturalResources and Ecosystem Management andlong-standing collaboration between the Bank’sEnvironment Department and the NaturalResources Institute (NRI) UK, including acontribution on Carrying Capacity (World Bank,1996).

The aim of the study is to improveunderstanding of how biological resourceconservation concerns can be betterincorporated into projects and programs thatprimarily address the objective of ruraldevelopment rather than environmentalconservation. A multi-disciplinary study teamwas assembled and six background papersproduced, along with the main overview paper.The six papers were:

1. Measuring biodiversity, predicting impacts,and monitoring change

2. Integrated pest management andbiodiversity conservation

3. Biodiversity conservation in agriculturallandscapes in Britain: relevant issues fordeveloping countries

4. Reconciling biodiversity and developmentissues in practice: the search for a win-winsituation in Ghana’s coastal wetlands

5. Strategies for biodiversity conservation:examples from Tanzania

Preface

6. Participatory initiatives in biodiversityconservation: lessons from experience

A study was also made of World Bank policiesand procedures relating to biodiversitymanagement and rural development togetherwith three portfolio reviews. The findings of thiswere not published separately but incorporatedinto the main paper.

The present paper is a distillation of findingsfrom the various studies. It argues thatbioresources and people’s livelihood systemsare intricately interrelated, and opportunitiesfor intervention for development purposes muststart from good understanding of differentpeople’s access to and use and management ofthese resources, and also the incentives,constraints and institutional factors governingthe process. The paper identifies the necessaryconditions and barriers to improvement, anddevelops an integrated framework for use instrategic development and the preparation ofprojects and programs.

The main findings of the study were presentedby the NRI team at an Environment Departmentseminar in January 1999. Following furtherwork the two volume draft report was peerreviewed by a multi-disciplinary panelestablished by the Bank (November/ December1999). This overview paper takes full account ofthe detailed and valuable comments receivedbut the views expressed are those of the authorswho take final responsibility for content.

viii


Environment Department Papers

Life on earth has evolved into a unique, complex and beautiful phenomenon, in which there isboth change and stability. The stability results from interlocking checks and balances, in whichevery species plays its role with little or no awareness of the true complexity of the biological,ecological and physical dynamics that constitute the system of which it is part. The rate andscale of human impact on the global ecology is such that it is now necessary to think about thesesystem dynamics, and whether it is possible that our species could engineer its own decline oreven demise. This is the challenge of sustainability.

Changes in the global ecology indicate that we need to become more aware of the consequences ofour actions, and to start to manage our affairs more consciously than has been the case in thepast. This may mean that it will be necessary to evolve new political and economic structuresand decision-making mechanisms in order to respond to these emerging global demands.

— Anthony Clayton and Nicholas Radcliffe,Sustainability: A Systems Approach (1996)

ixBiodiversity Series

Acknowledgments

The idea for this study came from Colin Rees,then Chief of the Land, Water and NaturalHabitats Division of the World Bank’sEnvironment Department. We gratefullyacknowledge generous help and support givenby Colin himself, as well as, Gonzalo Castroand Gunars Platais, both of the EnvironmentDepartment’s biodiversity team. We shouldalso thank the members of the peer-reviewpanel for insightful comments, and Bank stafffrom the regional and technical departmentswith whom we consulted too numerous tomention individually.

We have also enjoyed and benefited fromhealthy debate with colleagues of the NaturalResources Institute (NRI) who sat on theadvisory panel. We would like to thank the

authors of six background papers: TonyRussell-Smith, Keith Shawe, Richard Zanré, LiaVan Broekhoven, Monica Janowski, andRichard Lamboll. Finally we would also like tothank Mike Morris (NRI), Izabella Koziell(DFID), and Felicity Proctor (DFID’srepresentative in the Rural DevelopmentDepartment of the World Bank) for theirsupport and helpful contributions to thepaper’s development.

The study was generously funded by the RuralLivelihoods and Environment Division of theDepartment for International Development(DFID) of the UK within the framework of itscollaborative programme in rural developmentwith the World Bank. Without this support thestudy would not have been possible.

xiBiodiversity Series

Executive Summary

The paper examines how to betteraccommodate biological resource concerns inrural development projects where povertyalleviation and welfare improvement are theprimary aims and considerations. It notes thathabitat change and land-use intensificationoutside Protected Areas (in their various forms)are to an extent inevitable given population andeconomic growth, human value systems, andthe demands of the market. The challenges itaddresses are to ensure that change anddevelopment occur without unnecessary loss ofbioresources, that sustainable as well asproductive systems are established, and that thesocial groups most dependent on biologicalresources do not suffer.

The term biodiversity is used in different ways,often to describe the wider values of natureassociated with abundance as well as itsvariability and variety. To avoid confusion, thepaper uses the term biological resources inconsidering the totality of economic goods andservices that nature provides and reserves theterm biodiversity for use in its strict or scientificsense. It also considers the distribution of useand non-use values and the way these benefitdifferent groups in society, differentiatingbetween those who suffer and those who gainfrom bioresource loss and habitat change (orindeed conservation). While there areundoubted synergies between development andconservation, there are also trade-offs andconflicts of interest between stakeholders thatare important to identify and understand at anearly stage in project development.

The paper reviews the historical progression instrategies and approaches to conservation up tothe present day. Most development agencieshave moved well beyond protectionistapproaches to conservation and, at least at atheoretical level, recognise the need forcommunity participation in bioresourcemanagement. However, there is limitedunderstanding of the operational means ofachieving participation in large ruraldevelopment projects and programmes or forrepresenting the economic and livelihoodinterests of key stakeholder groups in these. Tohelp overcome this, the paper develops a broadplanning framework that incorporates detailedanalysis of the perspectives and economicinterests of different stakeholders, and therepresentation of these interests in project andprogramme design.

In conclusion the paper reinforces twooverlapping themes:

• That every rural development project,including agricultural projects, is location-specific and it is critical to appreciate theimportance of local realities, particularly thedetailed interactions between local peopleand biological resources.

• That while every project must be assessed atan overall (macro) level, it is equally criticalto consider micro-economic incentives, andparticularly the cost-benefit distributions ofproject impact and biological resourcechange.

xii


Environment Department Papers

The paper suggests that failure to attend tothese issues in the preparation and design ofinterventions can lead to resistance to projectactivities, poor uptake of messages andtechnologies, and unforeseen negative impactson groups of stakeholders (which may

undermine the broader goals of povertyalleviation). It is hoped that application of themethodology put forward will contribute to thedesign of effective interventions and increasethe likelihood of project success.

1Biodiversity Series

Introduction

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

The critical role that biological resources play insustaining human life has in the last twodecades received considerable if belatedattention. In 1992 a broad framework for theconservation and use of the world’s biologicalresources—the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD)—was agreed by the UnitedNations Conference on Environment andDevelopment (the Earth Summit). Despiteincreasing recognition, however, the world’sbiological resources continue to be lost at analarming rate, and particularly so in developingcountries where many of the remainingresources are concentrated.

The reasons for loss are complex and locally-specific but frequently relate to the processes ofhabitat conversion and agriculturalintensification brought about by demographicand market-driven pressures (Pagiola andKellenberg, 1997). Pressures are inflated by the‘public good’ characteristics of biologicalresources and difficulties of internalising valuesin land-use management. The immediate land-managers in the developing world arecommonly the many millions of farmers,livestock keepers, forest dwellers and other setsof rural people, both men and women, whoselivelihoods are closely dependent upon theavailability and productivity of biological andother natural resources. Their situations maynot be identical, however, and differentstakeholder groups have different interests inthe way the resources are exploited andmanaged. Some have livelihoods closely bound

up with conservation and the sustained use ofwild resources while others are driven bymarket opportunities and investment in theconversion of natural systems to productiveagriculture.

Biological resources, their management, andpeople’s livelihood systems are thus complexand intricately inter-connected. In this paper wedevelop the argument that opportunities forintervention designed for the purpose of ruraldevelopment must start from a knowledge andunderstanding of what these resourcescontribute to different sets of people, theeconomic incentives and institutional factorsgoverning the process, and the costs andbenefits of change. We suggest that failure totake account of micro-level economic-environmental interactions and the cost-benefitdistributions of project or programme impactcan seriously threaten their performance andlead to less than anticipated economic benefitsand unnecessary biological resourcedegradation.

1.2 The challenge

A central challenge facing developmentagencies is how to better accommodateecological concerns in rural developmentprojects and programs where the fundamentalaims are poverty reduction and economicdevelopment, particularly raising the livingstandards of poor rural people. Associated withthis is the notion of sustainability and theassurance that future generations will not sufferfrom today’s ‘short-termist’ decisions and

Environment Department Papers2


actions. Development and conservation havemuch in common and it is imperative to seekconvergence whenever this is possible.However the two are not always mutuallysupportive and trade-offs between developmentand conservation sometimes occur, perhapsincreasingly with population growth and otherpressures for change. Unfortunately these trade-offs are often ignored or downplayed in projectand programme preparation and seldom form aconsidered and costed part of developmentplanning.

The focus of the study is on rural developmentin landscapes already modified or converted byhuman activity, where socio-economicdevelopment rather than ecosystemconservation is the primary concern of localpeople and development planners alike. It isworth a reminder that few if any landscapes areuntouched by human activity and most—perhaps 80 percent or more of the globe—arelargely a product of it. Unlike national parksand other protected areas, modified landscapesare managed primarily for productive purposessuch as agriculture in its various forms,livestock rearing or commercial forestry. Byglobal standards, these areas are not generallyseen as biologically rich or diverse andbiological resource management takes a backseat. The importance of biological resources inthese areas should not be minimised, however,and they form an integral part of the livelihoodsystems and diets of many of the world’spoorest people (see Box 1.1).

In this context the study examines the issues tobe addressed to minimise environmentaldamage and retain wherever possible theessential contributions that biological resourcesmake to rural livelihoods and social andeconomic development. The study covers bothagricultural biodiversity—the range of soil,plant and animal organisms, species andecological functions that contribute toagricultural productivity—and more

particularly the wild resources and nichehabitats of modified landscapes, together withthe natural ecological functions and servicessuch as plant pollination and nutrient cyclingthat they support.1 As discussed in section 2.1,the term biological resources is used toencompass not just biodiversity but also thetotality and abundance of living organisms (seesection 2.1). 2

1.3 Human-centred perspective

There are two distinct ways of considering thevalue of biological resources and the case fortheir conservation that can give rise to majordifferences in understanding (Pearce, 1994;Grimble, 1996). The ecocentric paradigm suggeststhat all living species have a moral and equalright to exist. In this argument all species aredeemed to have an intrinsic value irrespective ofany value that humans derive from or attributeto them. The anthropocentric paradigm, on theother hand, views biological resources as acollection of goods and services that support themaintenance and enhancement of human life.Conservation is necessary where their lossreduces the stock of natural capital and theresource base available for current or potentialfuture use. Their loss may also endanger localand global life-support systems and ultimatelythreaten the future of humankind.

For both theoretical and practical reasons wetake an anthropocentric position in this study:

• The ecocentric concept of intrinsic value isunmeasurable or even unknowable, andseemingly has little utility for practicalmanagement. Without some assessment ofrelative importance there is no rational wayfor choosing or prioritising between actions3

• Rural development is itself anthropocentric,aimed at reducing poverty and improvingthe welfare of people, particularly the poor.If this is the case, and with the proviso thatdevelopment should be sustainable, people-


Introduction

centred objectives logically take precedenceover other considerations.

In taking our people-centred position, we givecentral consideration to distributional as well asglobal aspects of biological resources, andparticularly the values ascribed to them bydifferent sets of local people. These people,many of whom are directly dependent onbiological resources for their livelihoods, arecommonly under-represented in society botheconomically and politically. In bothdevelopment and conservation planning, it is

vital to ensure that the social groups mostdependent upon biological resources are notharmed by development or habitat change, orare properly compensated where they are.

1.4 Target audience and paper structure

The paper is targeted at the following sets ofpeople:

• Task managers, desk officers, and others indevelopment agencies such as the WorldBank and national government with frontline responsibility for planning and

Box 1.1The value of bioresources to local people

Though many bioresources do not enter markets or provide financial income, they contribute significantly tomany people’s nutrition and livelihoods. They are particularly important in times of hardship and in marginalareas, especially for the very poor, women and children. The IIED document “The Hidden Harvest” (1992)identifies some examples:• wild foods from common property are estimated to contribute some 20% of the nutrition of the poor in the

dry season in parts of India• in 1973, the Berti tribe in Sudan survived a famine in large part by collecting wild grass seeds• unmarried and divorced women in Usambara in Tanzania support themselves by the collection and selling

wild leaves and berries• some 41 percent of the Karimojong population in Uganda subsisted largely off wild foods in a famine in 1980.

The following uncultivated products are of value:• wild foods such as fruit, berries, nuts, fungi, bush-meat and insects such as grasshoppers• housing construction and roofing materials, such as poles and grasses• raw materials (e.g. rattan, raffia, reeds) for manufacture of furniture, tools & ropes• traditional herbal medicines• clothing and bedding (e.g. bark cloth and kapok)• fuel for cooking and heating (e.g. firewood and charcoal)• animal feed, fodder and litter.

In agriculture, bioresources provide:• inputs such as manure, compost and mulch.• crop and livestock varieties, cultivars and landraces (including wild relatives)• wild and domesticated pollinators and associated products (honey and wax)• soil organisms that contribute to soil fertility and nutrient recycling• predators of important pests that damage cultivated crops• coppiced poles and other products• livestock feed and forage.

More generally, bioresources provide:• protection against the adverse effects of climatic variability and extremes• resilience and maintenance of a healthy agro-ecosystem• new potential crops and livestock types• genetic material for breeding improved yields and pest/ disease/ drought resistance• culturally and spiritually preferred environments for human habitat and leisure.



managing rural development projects andprogrammes

• Staff in development agencies with higher-level responsibilities, able to determine orinfluence policy direction, strategicthinking, operational procedures, and ‘goodpractice’

• While not the primary target audience, thepaper will also benefit specialists andtechnicians who conduct professionalstudies and contribute to project andprogramme design and management.

The paper is divided into four chapters. Chapter2 outlines the conceptual basis of the study,discussing the values and relevance ofbiological resources in their various forms todifferent sets of people. Chapter 3 reviewsdifferent approaches to nature and biodiversityconservation over the years and the thinkingand strategies guiding practice today. Chapter 4brings the paper to a practical conclusion byidentifying the necessary conditions andbarriers for improvement, and developing abroad framework for planning ruraldevelopment.


Conceptual Framework

2 Conceptual Framework

2.1 Clarifying definitions

Biodiversity is a concept open to multipleinterpretations and meanings and as such isvaguely defined and understood. The mostwidely accepted definition is set out in theConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1992)in terms of the variety and variability of life.This is broken down into its genetic, species and(generally) its ecosystem components withsecondary reference to the ecological complexesof which they are part (see Box 2.1). In everydayparlance this may be simplified to refer to rareand threatened habitats and animals of globalimportance.

The emphasis on variety and variability inscientific interpretations leads to questionsconcerning its local (as well as global) validity,and at what place and scale diversity isnecessary and should be assessed. The focus onvariability also underplays the practicalimportance of quantity and abundance. One beeis hardly important by itself; its value topollination is the fact that there are many

millions of them. Moreover, the variability focusleads to an emphasise on physical attributes(particularly genes and species) and underplaythe values associated with its less tangiblefunctions such as pollination and nutrientcycling, and on a wider scale, its contribution towatershed protection and ecosystem resilience.

These dilemmas move us from biology into theworld of social science and the values andbenefits derived by humankind from nature.Some authors have argued the need to separatethe value of diversity from the wider attributesof biological resources (Aylward, 1991). Othershave stretched the concept of biodiversity insuch a way to encompass not only diversity butto include ideas not associated with variabilityalone. Indeed, increasingly commonly the termis used more or less as a synonym for nature ingeneral, and the terms nature and biodiversityconservation are used interchangeably.

We believe it is important to reduce confusionby distinguishing between biodiversity, definedin its scientific sense as the variability and

Box 2.1The science of biodiversity

As noted above, the scientific definition of biodiversity focuses on the variety and variability of biological lifeconsidered in terms of its hierarchical composition at genetic, species and ecosystem levels. All species anddifferences between them are the result of evolutionary change caused by the effect of natural selection ongenetic variability within the ancestral heritage.

Levels in the hierarchy are not discrete, however, and there is overlap and connectivity between them all. Ineffect, they are ways of looking at the same thing at different scales. Many genes are found within species,many species are found within ecosystems, and many ecosystems are found within the biosphere. Thus ulti-mately all levels can be defined by their genes.



variety of life, and the abundance of livingresources and ecological functions found in alllandscapes throughout the world. We suggestthat biodiversity and bioabundance are twodistinct qualities associated with biologicalresources, each of which are of potential majorimportance to local people and others. In thisstudy we use the term biological resources, orbioresources, to encapsulate diversity andabundance when taken together, and reserve theterm biodiversity for use in its narrower sense.In Table 2.2 we distinguish between the two setsof value (diversity and abundance) and giveexamples of likely beneficiaries of each.

2.2 Disturbance and change

In bioresource terms, the world’s landscapes canbe viewed along a ‘disturbance’ continuum,from purely natural states to the artificialcreations of man (Table 2.1). At one end liepristine ecosystems, though apart from thetundra it would be difficult to find completelynatural landscapes untouched by local people(e.g. even remote tropical forests are used bypygmies and others for hunting and gathering).Disregarding the built environment, at the other

end of the spectrum lie highly-specialisedcommercial farms and plantations practisingindustrial agricultural and animal-rearingsystems, using artificial chemicals, heavymechanisation and purchased inputs, creationsthat in the future can be expected toincreasingly incorporate genetically modifiedorganisms (GMOs).

In between lie a vast array of partiallyconverted agricultural landscapes whoseposition along the disturbance continuum canbe assessed in terms of input or output intensity.A movement from subsistence to market basedventures and a rise in resource productivitymay parallel this disturbance. Land extensivesystems include shifting or slash and burnsystems barely discernible from natural forests,traditional mixed crop systems producing avariety of food for domestic consumption orsale, and numerous systems incorporating treecrops and livestock combinations.

There are always changes, and frequently losses,in both biodiversity and bioabundance acrossthe disturbance continuum, as intensificationand specialisation continues (Table 2.1). With

Table 2.1. Three land-use models on the disturbance continuumNatural state Partial conversion Total conversion

Land system Pristine natural

landscapes and

habitats

Multiple types and degrees

of conversion and

intensification

Predominantly man-

made systems and

mono-crop production

Bioresources Generally diverse

and abundant

Diversity & abundance

dependent upon the

intensity and nature of

management

Intensification leads to

losses in diversity and

abundance

Market values Low, but under-

estimated because

functions & values

unknown/ unpriced

Values dependent upon

nature and degree of

change

High, but may be

overestimated and

disregard external costs

Sustainability All states may managed sustainability but threats and uncertainties to both

biodiversity and abundance greatly increase across the continuum



the arguable exception of industrial agriculture,however, losses are not absolute and manymanaged as well as natural landscapes canincorporate a great deal of environmental value.The ecological values of these landscapes isoften only recognised with development. InBritain, for example, conservation is seen torequire the return to the relatively-extensivefarming systems of the recent past—now seen tocontain much biodiversity and to provide manyvaluable ecological services—rather than to thenatural state and vegetation of the area.

2.3 Bioresource values

We earlier alluded to the fact that bothbiodiversity and bioabundance provide a rangeof goods and services of value to humans and itis these that drive anthropocentric argumentsfor conservation. A number of analyticalframeworks for the economic valuation of theenvironment have been developed which wehave applied to bioresources. These aredescribed in Box 2.2 and developed further inTable 2.2.

While this framework is helpful forconceptualising the total economic value ofbioresources, there are many theoretical andpractical difficulties in its use. These values aregenerally extremely difficult to measure andapply, including contingency valuationtechniques that assess people’s willingness-to-pay for conservation. Moreover the valuesassigned are not ‘socially neutral’ and may bereckoned differently by different stakeholdergroups. International comparison poses aparticular dilemma; for example, it wouldhardly seem ethical for (inevitably) vagueestimates of the existence value of the North todominate the direct-use values of poor localpeople in marginal parts of developingcountries.

We mentioned above that some of the values ofbioresources relate to the abundance of theresource while others are derived from diversityitself. The utility of fuelwood collected by ruralpeople is likely to be more dependent on itsavailability and abundance than its diversity,

Box 2.2An economic valuation of bioresources

The primary distinction in valuing bioresources is between use and non-use values. Use values refer to thepurposeful use of bioresources to gain some economic benefit or utility. Goods can be consumed by the house-hold that hunts, collects or grows them, used as raw materials, or traded and sold. Other use values relate toactivities such as trophy hunting, ecotourism, and bird-watching. Indirect use values are associated with theecological functions that maintain the stability and productivity of the environment. Locally, wild pollinatorssuch as bees and insects are vital for crop production as are soil organisms for nutrient cycling and fertilitymaintenance. On a wider scale values include the protection bioresources afford water catchments and hydro-logical regimes, and the contribution of forests and vegetation to atmospheric balance and climate regulation.Bioresources can also be valued for the aesthetic, cultural, spiritual or recreational benefits they provide.

Bioresources also provide intangible non-use benefits relating to their potential future use or to their veryexistence. Species that currently have no known use, or are themselves unknown, may yet become importantfoodstuffs or provide valuable medicinal compounds or genetic resources in the future. Similarly, species thatare currently unimportant to an ecological complex could in future be critical. Acknowledgement of presentuncertainty and the potential for future values suggests that society may be willing to pay for the option ofmaintaining diversity.

Existence values represent the satisfaction that an individual derives from the knowledge that a given elementof biodiversity exists, irrespective of whether that individual ever expects to use or benefit from it directly.Such value may be associated with ethical, moral, or cultural beliefs, reflecting, for example, the concern thatmany feel for endangered species such as whales or tigers, or threatened ecosystems such as rainforests.



Use values Non-use values

Direct use values

Consumptive Nonconsumptive Indirect use values Option values Existence values

Definition: goods for

home consumption,

manufacture or

trade

Non-tradable or

subtractive

Ecological functions

for maintaining

sustainability and

productivity

Possible future

use or

serendipity

Satisfaction from

knowledge of

existence

Example values from

diversity:

mixed crop varieties;

mixed food

combinations

Aesthetic value

of diverse

landscapes; some

birdwatching

Gene pool;

potential

medicines and

drugs

Special concern

for diverse

species and

ecosystems

Example values from

abundance:

food, fuel, fodder,

raw materials

Birdwatching and

recreation

Carbon storage,

nutrient cycling,

photosynthesis,

waste assimilation

None identified Cultural and

spiritual assets

Example

beneficiaries:

poor rural people

including women

Visitors and

tourists of

various kinds

Downstream users

of land, water, and

energy; the world

community

The young and

future

generations

Environment

lobbies and

concerned people

Diversity of

species assists

ecosystem

resilience and

stability

though people will also be aware of criticaldifferences in the burning and heating qualitiesof different species. In other situations it is thediversity which is of direct value: for example, afarmer may plant a range of different crops andvarieties so as to minimise damage from pestattack or weather extremes, or to takeadvantage of local micro-climate and soil-types.The way farmers deliberately select and grow alarge number of local varieties of beans in theTanzanian central highlands is discussed inLamboll and Van Broekhoven (1999).Generally, then, biodiversity is used to reducerisk and improve sustainabilty and productivity,and forms an essential part of many poorpeople’s livelihood systems.

2.4 The distribution of values

At the heart of the debate about theconservation of bioresources and its relevance to

rural development lies the vexed question ofcost/benefit distributions. Most but not all localvalues are direct use values, which provideimmediate and practical benefits to local people.At a regional level direct use values are less inevidence and the contributions made by indirectfunctions and services become more important. Atthe international and global scale, theimportance of non-use existence value becomesparamount, though retaining options forpotential future use can also be critical (Table2.2).

It is now accepted that structural andinstitutional matters such as property rights,local culture and resource access are likely togovern the distribution of values in anyparticular situation (Hanna and Munasinghe,1995). For example, indigenous people withlong-standing access rights to a forest may

Table 2.2. The economic values, benefits, and beneficiaries of bioresources

Source: Developed from Barbier, 1992; Pearce and Moran, 1994; Blaikie and Jeanrenaud, 1996; and Hodge, 1997.



utilise a variety of non-timber forest products,both animal and vegetable. Similarly, forest-margin groups may supplement theirlivelihoods with wild products and retainsacred areas (forest groves) for spiritualpurposes (see Box 2.3). Collecting and gatheringwild products from common land is frequentlythe task of women and it is they who are oftenmost affected by their loss. In contrast, farmerswith secure cultivation rights are likely tobenefit more from the agricultural serviceattributes of bioresources such as the mulchingand composting properties of microbes and soilorganisms.

As the values of bioresources are unevenlydistributed in society, it follows that the costsand benefits of loss or conservation are alsounevenly spread. It is now well-established thatattempts to conserve a habitat by evicting,restricting access, or preventing certain usagehas an opportunity cost borne by those directlydependent on the area. Similarly, developmentalactivities such as road construction orgroundwater development schemes impact invarious ways on the economic interests ofdifferent rural populations. As stakeholdersthemselves, development agencies andconservation bodies make policy choices thatimplicitly make trade-offs between differentobjectives. Despite increasing use of projectdesignations designed to encompass the twinobjectives of conservation and development(such as ‘sustainable development’ or‘community-based conservation’, not allactivities are beneficial to all and difficultjudgements have to be made between short andlong-term objectives.

With the rise in global populations and thescarcity value of natural resources, there is anincreasing demand for the goods and servicesthat bioresources provide and especial concernfor unnecessary loss. A key policy objective is,

therefore, to identify ways to minimise trade-offs between environmental, economic andequity objectives, and where at all possibledevelop win-win-win situations. We return tothis question later but at this point can indicatetwo needs. Firstly, to give priority to protectingthose elements of biodiversity that provide mostbenefits to local rural populations, especially thepoor; and secondly, to ensure that the benefitsobtained from conserving bioresourcesoutweigh the full operational and opportunitycosts of conservation. It is important that this isdone not just as a project-level calculation butalso from the viewpoints of the stakeholdergroups most directly concerned.

Box 2.3Different local perceptions of the

use value of bioresources

While wild foods may be an important part of thediets and livelihoods of some rural people, othersmay consider them weeds or pests of agriculturalcrops. For example:• Caterpillars are widely eaten and marketed but

are a major pest of many crops such as cotton• Green leafy plants are extracted as weeds from

agricultural fields but provide valuable addi-tions to the diets of many people and domesticanimals

• Termites can be an important food supplementin many parts of southern Africa but reduceyields and handicap cultivation in other situa-tions.

In circumstances such as these, different stake-holders may view the same bioresource quite dif-ferently, a cost to one being a benefit to another.The complexity of dealing with such issues is il-lustrated on a wider scale by different sets of in-terest towards the conservation or conversion offorest land. In the Himalayan foothills, for ex-ample, livestock keepers practising seasonal tran-shumance may clash at certain times of the yearwith those groups and government departmentswith an economic interest in maintaining forestplantations.

Source: IIED 1992.


Strategies and Approaches to Conservation

3Strategies and Approachesto Conservation

The word ‘biodiversity’ is a relatively recent onethat has become widely used only since themid-1980s; prior to this most of the approachesto bioresource conservation referred to nature orwildlife conservation. Though many of theissues and challenges remain the same, theconsiderations have moved well-beyond thescope of earlier approaches. This chapter brieflyreviews historical developments that have led tothe current situation and considers the issuesthat guide conservation practice today.

3.1 Historical trends

References to environmental degradation goback to Egyptian and Grecian times, notablyPlato’s description of an over-grazed landscapein Attica as being “like the skeleton of a sickman, all the fat and soft earth having beenwasted away, and only the bare framework ofthe land being left” (Rhodes and Odell, 1992).Early attempts by authorities to protect theenvironment were generally undertaken forutilitarian or recreational reasons, particularlyfor use by the powerful. In Lower Egypt, forexample, the Pharoes retained areas forhawking and hunting and in England Williamthe Conqueror extended forest law to large tractsof land (including the present day New Forest)“to protect and provide for sport and theprovision of game” for his retinue.

The rise of modern conservation consciousnessin Britain gathered momentum in the late 19thcentury with urbanisation and thedisappearance of wildlands. State involvementin the regulation of natural areas for the public

good began in the 1860s when legislation waspassed to widen public access to common lands(e.g. the London parks such as ClaphamCommon). Running parallel to this was agrowing romantic interest in nature and also ascientific concern. In 1869 the philosopher andeconomist J S Mill advanced arguments for thepreservation of species for their own sake,independent of their economic utility (Westernand Wright, 1994). Out of this developed thenotion of a nature reserve managed for its wildand diverse species.

On a much grander scale conservationmovements developed in the United States, ledby John Muir founder of the Sierra Club, andother spiritualists and romantics. The dominanttheme was the attempt to reserve nature for itsintrinsic value and in separation from humans.The fact that most environments are shaped byhuman activities was not recognized and theeconomic interests of local communities wereentirely discounted. Thus Yellowstone, the firstin a series of national parks, was established in1872 to preserve the pristine wilderness,evicting the native Shoshone, Crow andBlackfoot Indians in the process. Only later weredeveloping tensions, such as those betweenpreservationists and forest logging interests,publicly acknowledged. In the Roosevelt era,stand-offs arose over plans to flood a valley inthe Yosemite National Park for the provision ofwater to San Francisco, followed in the postWorld War II period by a series of waterconflicts. The split later widened when theanimal rights and deep ecology movements



surfaced and began to champion the interests ofspecies and nature on ethical and moralgrounds (Western and Wright, 1994).

3.2 Fortress conservation

In developing countries, early conservationistswere similarly motivated by the desire toprotect wildlife and nature in their pristine andundisturbed condition. The main focus was theestablishment and management of protectedareas (PAs) in the form of forest reserves, naturereserves and national parks. Early initiativesincluded the establishment of forest reserves inthe West Indies and a botanical garden in SouthAfrica (1820). The momentum to preserve forestand game in various parts of the colonialempires built up towards the turn of thecentury, and there was renewed activity afterWorld War II (e.g. in East Africa). During thisperiod the colonial focus on hunting and gamemanagement merged with a growinginternational interest in wildlife conservation,and many controlled hunting areas and gamereserves were reclassified as national parks(Adams and Hulme, 1997).

The process of identification, establishment andmanagement of all such areas was top-downand politically-led, with selection taking placecentrally and implementation by governmentministries. Emphasis was given to protectingareas of high species-diversity or those wherehigh-profile animals or natural habitats werethreatened. Selection criteria were based on theneed to protect features of global (or Northern?)importance and local interests were barelyrecognized or taken into account. Themanagement aim was to minimize humandisturbance within PA boundaries so thatnatural, ecological processes would maintainthe environment and continue to providehabitat suitable for wildlife. As in the earlyyears of conservation experience in the USA,this followed a protectionist or ‘fortressconservation’ approach in which local people

living within the park were evicted andexcluded from use of the natural resources onwhich they had previously been dependent.

The outcome of this was often ongoingconfrontation between the PA authorities andlocal people. In East Africa the Maasai and otherpastoralists continued to graze their livestock,hunt game (or poach, depending onperspective) and cultivate land within newlyestablished park boundaries. In an effort toprevent such practices, the authorities wereforced to commit greater resources tomaintaining and patrolling boundaries andenforcing regulations. Problems became moreserious over time, brought about by increasingpopulation pressure on PAs and surroundingareas, and the escalating cost of protection. Thefencing of areas sometimes also had adeleterious effect on the wildlife for which thePAs had been established, particularly wherefences crossed migratory routes.

The problems of fortress conservation with itstop down and centralised approach to PAmanagement generally failed to protect thewildlife as fully as intended and often causedhardship to local communities. The attempt toseparate conservation from developmentconcerns was increasingly challenged and theapproach was ultimately overtaken by anotherdiscourse often termed community-basedconservation (Western and Wright, 1994; Adamsand Hulme, 1997).

3.3 Community-based initiatives

In contrast to fortress conservation,community-based conservation (CBC) is basedon an improved understanding of the linkagesand mutual dependence between conservationand local people, and the need for people toparticipate in conservation activities. It is thedecisions and actions of local people thatcommonly bring about bioresource loss and theapproach sees working with them, and getting



them on management’s side, as being of keyimportance to conservation. Development ofthe CBC narrative runs alongside improvedunderstanding of the economic rationality ofpoor rural people and growing recognition ofthe depth and value of indigenous knowledge.

This linking of conservation and developmentinterests was developed and reiterated inmany documents important to biodiversityconservation, most notably the BiodiversityConvention, signed by some 170 nations at theUnited Nations Conference on Environmentand Development in 1992. Numerous attemptshave been made to operationalise the approachincluding UNESCO’s Man and Biosphereprogram (which promoted buffer zonesaround PAs in an attempt to meet the needs ofboth local communities and the PAsthemselves), and integrated conservation anddevelopment projects. Understanding theinterdependence of nature and local people hassince been taken further: for example, thetheme of the African Regional BiodiversityForum held in Mombassa in February 2000 was“Using Biodiversity to StrengthenLivelihoods”. The aim of the forum was to“explore ways to integrate poverty alleviationconsiderations into local, national and regionalactions aimed at conserving, using sustainably,and sharing equitably, the benefits ofbiodiversity.”

The positive legacy of community-based-conservation is thus now widely recognised,including the need to involve local people inthe planning and implementation of projects.The jury is out, however, as to whether thestructural shift has been as successful in realityas in rhetoric. The overarching aim remainsone of bioresource conservation with theunwritten assumption that, when done in theright way, conservation is of automatic benefitto local people. While most if not allconservation practitioners now advocate theinvolvement of local communities in their

programs, there is only limited evidence oflocal people’s views being assessed andincorporated in the planning, managementand implementation of projects (IIED, 1994;Brandon, 1993; Little, 1994). Moreover there islittle recognition of the complexities ofparticipation and methodological difficultiesare often swept under the carpet (Arnstein,1969). Many programs still fail to fully analyseproblems from stakeholder perspectives orproperly consider who bears the cost ofconservation (see the example in Box 3.1). Thisis especially critical when what is to beconserved is of national or global value but oflimited relevance to poor local people.

3.4 Conservation outside protected areas

Though conservation practice has moved on along way from the legacy of fortressconservation, conservation funding is stilldominated by the establishment andmanagement of Protected Areas (PAs) chosenfor their contribution to global biodiversity andcontaining high species diversity or rare orendemic habitats under threat (World Bank,2000). Even where project activities areclassified as relating to conservation outsidePAs, this often means the management ofbuffer zones rather than areas with noconnection to PAs at all. Such a continuedfocus on PAs reflects the continued nature orwildlife conservation mindset and theemphasis this places on the protection ofnatural habitats and rare and threatenedspecies (see Box 3.2).

As more and more natural ecosystems areconverted or heavily modified, exclusivereliance on a PA network becomes less viable.Examination of environmental policy andpractice in developed countries demonstratesthat managed areas, as well as naturallandscapes, contain much of environmentalvalue and should be considered as importantfor conservation (see the UK case study, Box



3.6). Many highly modified and fragmentedlandscapes in developed and developingnations alike provide habitats for a large varietyof adaptable and new species and for thenumerous ecological functions that sustainagriculture (Srivastava et al, 1996). Exclusiveconcentration on global concerns for their rarityor diversity is no longer appropriate and it isnecessary to widen our appreciation andconsider the value of bioresources in all areasand to all people.

Many of the world’s poor live in suchagricultural landscapes greatly changed fromtheir natural state and where natural resourcesare exploited for productive purposes.4 Theaim of donor interventions in these areas ispoverty reduction and welfare enhancementand, though sustainability concerns are alsoconsidered important, bioresourceconservation as such usually takes a back seat.This is despite the recognition of the role wild

Box 3.2A successful example of community-based conservation

The sal forests of West Bengal in India had traditionally provided an important resource for local people.However the assumption of state ownership and control undermined traditional property management re-gimes, and the forest became badly degraded with no standing trees outside village environs, and in someareas even tree roots were extracted for fuelwood. Local people were aware of the negative changes arisingfrom forest degradation, and reported impacts such as temperature increase, lower rainfall, drier earth, diffi-culty in finding wood for tools and fuel, and drying up of water sources.

The subsequent establishment of Forest Protection Committees returned a degree of local control over forestuse to the villagers and re-established incentives for local people to protect forest areas. This has reportedlyresulted in forest regeneration with local people citing benefits such as reduced insect attack on rice crops (dueto increased bird populations), improved water infiltration and less runoff, and cleaner air. Villagers say theforest is important in cleansing the air of disease and generally contributing to a healthy environment.

Source: Janowsky and Zanré, volume 2.

Box 3.1Uneven participation and success in CAMPFIRE

The structure of the well-known CAMPFIRE initiative in Zimbabwe provides for decentralisation of decision-making and the devolution of resource management responsibilities, passing incentives for conservation man-agement down to local communities. The devolution of power has had considerable success in changing atti-tudes from dependency on central institutions to self-reliance and self-sufficiency. In the process, local institutionshave also been strengthened in terms of project management and accountability.

However, whilst community participation has been effectively implemented in some areas, in others this hasbeen much less successful. The problem has usually concerned the nature and effectiveness of the devolutionprocess. In some cases devolution has gone no further than the district councils, leaving local communitiesfrustrated and powerless, let alone the individual households where resource management decisions are com-monly made. This has led to misunderstanding and sometimes hostility towards CAMPFIRE, increasing mis-trust of district councils, lack of effective environmental controls, and intolerance of wildlife that cause dam-age and provide no local benefit. Environmentally the result has been negative, with continued illegal poachingand further encroachment into wildlife areas. The problems of participatory conservation management havebeen more acute in marginal areas with fewer elephants or other wildlife valued by tourists and hunters, andthereby attracting less finance.

Source: Janowsky and Zanré, 1999.



bioresources play in the livelihoods of ruralcommunities, and especially of the poor.5

In the case of the World Bank, an examinationof biodiversity in the agricultural sectorportfolio (Jana and Cooke, 1996) shows thatonly 40 out of 402 (less than 10%) projectsexplicitly involved the conservation andmanagement of biodiversity, and even in thesebiodiversity is generally treated as a separateissue rather than integrated with other projectactivities. The paper also indicates thatenvironmental assessment of agriculture-sector projects rarely directly discussbiodiversity issues, and where they do, it isusually in the context of the likely effect ofproject activities on PAs, or the establishmentof conservation areas as mitigation for certainnegative environmental impacts of the project.Rarely is there any discussion of the impor-tance of biodiversity within the agriculturallands themselves.

Despite this apparently bleak position, thepaper does provide some evidence of positivetrends towards more environmentallysustainable agricultural activities. The analysisis based on a broad characterisation of the

impacts of activities undertaken; for example,agroforestry and IPM activities are rated ashaving positive effects on biodiversity, whilstpesticide use and plantation cropping of cashcrops are rated as negative activities. Thedanger of such simplification is recognised byauthors: while IPM may generally have afavourable or neutral effect on biodiversity, insome instances it may impact negatively onlocal livelihoods (See box 3.4 and Russell-Smith, volume 2).

3.5 The current paradigm

During the 1980s the notion of sustainabledevelopment developed, centred on the ‘wiseuse’ of natural resources.6 The workculminated in the Rio Declaration (1992), a setof 27 principles for sustainable development,and Agenda 21, a global action plan for theirimplementation. A number of differentapproaches to integrating environmental anddevelopmental goals have since beendeveloped which fall within the framework ofsustainable development. At the country level,comprehensive development frameworks, nationalstrategies for sustainable development, andpoverty reduction strategy papers are designedto provide strategic guidance.

Box 3.3Current policies and procedures towards biodiversity in the World Bank

World Bank recognition of the importance and contributions of biodiversity for many years has focused onPAs and the global values of rare and threatened species and habitats. In screening projects for EnvironmentalAssessment purposes, current Bank guidance highlights the need to identify “the potential for significant conver-sion or degradation of critical or other natural habitats” (OP/BP 4.04). Natural habitats are described as thosewhere “(i) the ecosystem’s biological communities are formed largely by native plant and animal species and (ii) humanactivity has not essentially modified the area’s primary ecological functions.” Critical natural habitats are those se-lected on the basis of “species richness; degree of endemism ,rarity, and vulnerability of component species; representa-tiveness; and the integrity of ecosystem processes.”

The emphasis on natural and critical habitats is acknowledged in the Bank’s second Environment Assessment(EA) review (World Bank, 1996) which states that: “many EAs appear to be biased towards non-degraded foresthabitats as the principal concern, even though other habitats can be important for biodiversity and its conservation. Fewof the EAs exploited opportunities within the project to conserve or increase biodiversity even where this would be benefi-cial for people in the project area.” It is important to note, however, that there is an ongoing shift in the Bank tocorrect these distortions, including the consideration of biodiversity issues in modified habitats and improv-ing the integration of conservation with mainstream developmental activities.



Condensed within these are approaches thataim to balance economic, social, andenvironmental objectives in an integrated way.The sustainable livelihoods approach (SLA) is away of thinking about poverty elimination andthe needs of the poor that rests on coreprinciples stressing people-centred, responsiveand multi-level approaches to development.Like other sustainable development concepts,the SLA has multiple interpretations but isessentially a holistic and systems-basedapproach to development that incorporates thekey ideas of participation, wise-use of naturalresources, and economic stability. The SLA thusaims to meet the developmental needs andaspirations of the poor in a socially andenvironmentally sensitive way (Scoones, 1998;Ashley and Carney, 1999).

Whereas the SLA is first and foremost people-centred, the ecosystem approach (EA) worksfrom the opposite side of the coin, addressingconservation issues and ecosystem integrity in away that is sensitive to local communities. Thecentral idea is the need to manage ecosystemsas entities, but recognising that they cut across

jurisdictional and other boundaries. Whileessentially aimed at maintaining ecosystemintegrity and productivity over the long term,the approach emphasises the importance oflocal people and acknowledges a place for“appropriate human modification” of thesesystems (World Resources Institute, 2000).

Neither the SLA nor the Ecosystem Approachare strictly new but rather syntheses of lessonslearnt from earlier approaches. In effect theyrepresent a convergence of development andconservation ideals, with both adopting thesame integrative and systems-based stance butlooking at issues from opposite sides of thecoin. The current challenge is to find ways tooperationalise these approaches that take fullaccount of practical realities. While it isrelatively easy to deal with situations wheremultiple goals converge, in most situationsthere are trade-offs between short and long-term objectives and conflicts of interestbetween multiple stakeholders (Grimble andWellard, 1997). For example, decisionsregarding matters such as the clearance orprotection of forested land often have to bemade where development or conservation

Box 3.4The effect of integrated pest management on biodiversity

In recent decades a variety of agro-ecological approaches including agro-forestry and integrated pest manage-ment (IPM) have been developed to minimise the environmental impacts of agricultural activities and protectbiodiversity. IPM was developed in response to the enormous damage inflicted on the environment by thewidespread and intensive use of chemicals in the control of harmful insects and pests. The fact that it aims toreduce or eliminate negative environmental impacts has led to the assumption that IPM techniques and pro-grams are necessarily environmentally benign. Though it is undeniable that IPM is preferable to the heavy andprescriptive use of chemical inputs (pesticides, herbicides and fungicides), there has been little or no researchto assess its actual impacts on biodiversity (Russell-Smith, volume 2). But it is perfectly clear that IPM pro-grams will adversely affect specific taxonomic groups, if only the pests they are designed to control.

If IPM affects some taxonomic pest groups it is quite possible that some of the technologies used in an IPMprogram will also affect - directly or indirectly - other forms of life, including those deemed to be non-harmfulor even useful. While these impacts may appear negligible or unimportant, a huge variety of pests (such astermites and caterpillars) and weeds are utilised by local communities, especially in hardship periods. Impactson biological systems may or not be significant but we cannot assume without study that IPM technologieshave no negative impacts or are necessarily technically and economically appropriate for all groups of localpeople or in every situation.



initiatives are contemplated. Addressing thesematters is no small challenge given the majorgaps in our understanding of people-ecosysteminteractions, the methodological difficulties of

Box 3.5Lake Tanganyika: an example of complex stakeholder interests and conflicts

Lake Tanganyika is a globally important biodiversity site with 300 endemic fish species and over 1,200 in total,the second highest species count of any lake. The lake’s global importance prompted the establishment of amajor UNDP/GEF funded biodiversity conservation project aimed at identifying major threats and prevent-ing biodiversity loss. The project reflects the high non-use (existence and option) value placed on it by theinternational community. However the lake’s fisheries are also an important local bioresource with high usevalues to local people. These differing values have led to a number of conflicts between stakeholders. Localpeople have little or no appreciation of global biodiversity concerns and why outsiders deem conservation soimportant, nor apparently do outsiders appreciate the livelihood concerns of local people.

When one area was designated as a National Park, changes in fishing regulations gave rise to conflict overfishing rights between the National Park Authorities and neighbouring villages. Traditionally, fishermen hadfollowed the movement of fish into the newly designated exclusion zone but with the changed status this wasno longer permitted. The problem was magnified by the absence of markers or buoys indicating the boundaryleading to unintentional entering of the park and the confiscation and destruction of equipment. While thenew status has led to widespread and unforeseen problems, the fishermen from one village have apparentlybenefited from the exclusion, as the sanctuary acts as a reservoir for the particular type of fish they catch.

To offset the loss of fishing rights, compensation payments have been made in the form of building materialsfor classrooms and teacher’s offices. While the provision of improved educational facilities is welcome andpotentially beneficial to the communities, the impact is seen as indirect and long term. The villagers do notconsider such help as sufficient compensation for the loss of fishing rights, which has severely affected theirlivelihood-sustaining activities. Nor does it provide any incentive for fishermen to reduce their fishing inten-sity. To maintain their livelihoods, the fishermen must either continue to fish (illegally) in the exclusion zone orincrease their catch from other parts of the lake.

Source: Lamboll and Van Broekhoven, in press.

assigning economic values to unmarketedgoods and services, and locally-variablepolitical, social, and institutional barriers totruly participatory approaches.

Box 3.6Lessons for development from conservation experience in the U.K.

For many generations the vast majority of land in Britain was managed for agriculture, forestry or other pro-ductive purpose, and today virtually no areas remain that could be described as truly natural. Until recentdecades these agricultural environments were both bioresource rich and attractive places much valued by thegeneral public. With incentives provided by the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), changes be-came more radical since the 1960’s and traditional extensive agricultural systems were replaced by highly-productive systems and technologies characterised by heavy mechanisation and chemical usage. Until re-cently all state assistance was designed to raise input productivity and no mechanism existed whereby farmerscould profit by reducing production or promoting the existence of biodiversity on his or her land.

Two major agro-environmental schemes have been introduced in the last decade to reverse this process. TheEnvironmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) and Countryside Stewardship (CS) schemes provide mechanisms bywhich farmers receive payments for managing their land in environmentally-positive ways, including the

(continued)



enhancement of biodiversity. Neither scheme sets out to restore virgin habitats untouched by man, or to reducepeople’s dependence on a particularly valuable piece of land. Rather the aim is to return to a more extensiveand perhaps idealised form of agriculture where externalities are minimal and man and nature live in har-mony.

In both schemes carefully-calculated payments are made to land managers to provide an incentive to join andcompensation for income foregone. These are enacted through management agreements or contracts made bythe Ministry of Agriculture with individual farmers. Studies have indicated that the British public values theprotection of the rural countryside for its aesthetic beauty, the opportunities for recreation it offers, and for theflora and fauna it attracts. Under the ESA and CS schemes farmers are paid for the provision of these goodsand services by the government which acts as a surrogate consumer for the general public.

However the establishment of these schemes has been prompted by fears of over production as much asbiodiversity loss. In developing countries priorities differ and food production and economic development areat the top of the list. In no way would most developing countries give the same priority to conservation con-cerns, or without outside funding have the capacity or afford the cost of running equivalent schemes. Thevalue of the UK comparison is not that similar schemes should be promoted at this stage of development butrather as evidence that poor people cannot be expected to pay for conservation out of their own pocket whenlivelihood considerations and price signals reflect other priorities. If we wish to give encouragement to poorpeople to conserve their biodiversity and abundance then economic incentives and institutional structuresmust reflect these priorities.

Source: Grimble and Laidlaw, in press.

Box 3.6 (continued)Lessons for development from conservation experience in the U.K.


4 Improving Project Design

In this final chapter we start by summarisingsome of the main conclusions and argumentspresented in the earlier chapters beforediscussing the means of achieving the goal ofintegrating bioresource conservation into thepolicies, plans and processes for ruraldevelopment. We identify barriers to integrationand discuss how these affect the treatment ofbioresources at the project level. Finally, wepropose a broad framework for action and pointto the need for more thorough assessment of theimpacts of rural development projects on theinteracting processes of environmental changeand stakeholder livelihoods.

4.1 Summary of the argument

The study sets out to examine how to betteraccommodate biological and ecological concernsin rural development where poverty alleviationand welfare improvement are the primary aimsand considerations. It suggests that habitatchange and land-use intensification outside PAsare to an extent inevitable given population andeconomic growth, human value systems, andthe demands of the market. The challenge is toensure that change and development occur withminimum loss of bioresources, that sustainableas well as productive systems are established,and that the social groups most dependent onbiological resources do not suffer.

The term biodiversity is used in different ways,often to describe the wider values of nature aswell as its variability and variety. To avoidconfusion, we use the term in its strict orscientific sense, and apply the word

bioresources to describe the values of diversityand abundance when taken together. The studyconsiders the way bioresources are valued,distinguishing between those derived fromdiversity and those from abundance. It alsoconsiders the distribution of these values andthe way they benefit different groups in society,differentiating between those who suffer or gainfrom bioresource loss and environmentalchange. While there are undoubted synergiesbetween development and conservation, thereare also trade-offs and conflicts that areimportant to identify and understand at anearly stage in project development.

Most development agencies have moved wellbeyond protectionist approaches toconservation and, at least at a theoretical level,recognise the need for community involvementand participation in bioresource management.However, there is less appreciation of theoperational means of achieving this ideal inlarge rural development projects or themethodological difficulties of people-participation in project design andmanagement. Many initiatives fail to analyseproblems from stakeholder perspectives orproperly consider who bears the cost ofenvironmental change or conservation. Theunwritten assumption remains thatconservation and development are mutuallysupporting and, when done in the right way,benefit all stakeholders alike. We believe this isan oversimplification that lies at the root ofmany problems, and of special concern whenthere are differences in perception between localand global interests.



4.2 Barriers to progress

Although much progress has been made in thetreatment of bioresources in the context of ruraldevelopment, it is useful to ask ourselves whythe problems outlined above still exist and toconsider a number of institutional barriers andchallenges:

• There is a continuing emphasis on globalvalues of biodiversity associated with rare,threatened and endemic species andhabitats and the establishment of protectedareas (of various types) to conserve them. Abroadening of the way policies andprocedures currently address biodiversityand wider bioresources concerns inproductive and degraded landscapes wouldfacilitate the incorporation of localbioresource values into project andprogramme development.

• The demand for an in-depth understandingof local interactions has a high informationrequirement. The collection and analysis ofinformation represents a potential increasein project preparation costs. This can at leastpartially be addressed by using a processapproach designed to facilitate theincorporation of newly-acquired knowledgeand understanding into the work of theproject.

• The influence of environmental assessments(EA) on project design remains problematic. Amore thorough integration of EA intoproject cycle activities, and a widening ofthe assessment process to include micro-economic/ environmental interactions,would improve project design.

• The identification of negative impacts of projectsand the mitigatory measures necessary tooffset them is important but should not takeprecedence over the need to seek positivemanagement options for the use of biologicalresources to sustain local livelihoods.

• The problem of in-country institutionalcapacity can be a significant barrier toeffective implementation of an information-intensive approach. Institutionaldeficiencies may include limited expertisein micro-economic analysis with a systemsperspective and the inability of governmentor local NGOs to adequately representstakeholder interests.

• The large scale of most donor-assisted projectsmeans that taking account of locally-specificvariation and cost-benefit distributions isdifficult and costly. This problem can in partbe addressed through the adoption of aprocess approach that allows for non-structured and flexible management, and adecentralisation of decision-making wherepossible to grassroots level.

4.3 A framework for action

In this paper we have considered theimportance of understanding people’sinteractions with bioresources in projectplanning and management and the need forrepresenting the interests and perspectives oflocal people in the process. The challenge now isto develop operational systems for taking ideasforward and incorporating these ideas intomainstream developmental activities. To thisend we have developed a broad framework forplanning (Fig 4.1) to assist the process ofpreparing specific local actions from broadly-stated strategic goals. An essential element ofthis framework is the adoption of a stakeholderapproach that incorporates detailed analysis ofthe perspectives and economic interests ofdifferent stakeholders, and the representation ofthese interests in project and programme design(Grimble and Wellard, 1997).

Step 1. Analysing the system

The starting point in the process is thedevelopment of an understanding of the localenvironment and people’s interaction with it.This includes:


Improving Project Design

• The identification of stakeholder groupswith different sets of interest in projectactivities and environmental change

• The economic value and role of goods andservices provided by bioresources, includingboth their diversity and abundance

• The importance of these to differentstakeholder groups in livelihood andfunctional terms

• An appreciation of what is happening to thesystem in the absence of intervention,including the impact of shocks and stresses

• The impacts of project activities onenvironment-people interactions, includingwho bears the cost or gets the benefit fromchange

• The trade-offs between short and long termmanagement ideals and practices

• The potential conflicts of interest betweenstakeholders at different scales and levels.

A partial illustration of the web of issues,questions and interactions concerned is given inFig 4.2.

Figure 4.1 Process for identifying and understanding bioresource problems from local perspectivesand preparing rural development projects with bioresource linkages

Analyse system

linkages between

bioresources

and people

Identify

stakeholders and

their perceptions

of interest

Assess affect of

social, economic,

and environmental

trends impacting

the system

Prioritise problems to be

addressed and define

objectives/desired outcomes

Assess institutional

and policy

constraints

Analyse past experience

and options for

intervention

Determine required

intervention in

broad terms

Iterative

feedback

processBuild local capacity and

systems for stakeholder

representation

Plan and implement local actions

based on local understanding and

knowledge

Step 2

Step 1

Step 3



Step 2. Developing a vision and rationale foraction

In light of the above, the second stage in theprocess is to consider the options forintervention, draw on lessons from pastexperience, and consider the institutional andpolicy context impacting on the system andinfluencing the room for manoeuvre.

The information from various sources is thendrawn together to determine the scope andform of intervention. An important element inthe process is the effective representation ofstakeholder interests in decision-making,particularly those groups with little influence orpower. This follows from properly conductedstakeholder analysis but is also likely to requiremechanisms for direct participation (e.g. localcommittees and forums, consensus building,and conflict resolution).

Step 3. Implementation and feedback

The third stage of the process is the action stagein which field level activities are planned andimplemented. This stage needs to be highlyiterative and flexible, ensuring thatinterventions are able to incorporate newinformation and understanding as they becameavailable, and also to respond to newlyidentified problems and challenges. The designof an effective feedback loop for informing andmodifying the management process is thereforeespecially critical.

A caveat

There is a danger that the above frameworkmight be understood and used mechanisticallywhereas in fact there is fluidity between thesteps and processes. The distinction betweenadjacent boxes in Fig 4.1 is artificial in that thesteps overlap, interact and influence eachother. The framework is therefore not a

Figure 4.2 The people-ecosystem web: A simplified illustration of issues, questions, and interactions

What stakeholders

need to be identified

and their differing

interests understood?

What are the

perspectives, needs and

aspirations of different

stakeholder groups?

Are there global

or option values

to be considered?

What current

exogenous trends

and changes

are underway?

What species and

habitats are found and

in what quantities?

What ecological

functions and services

are provided?

What are the local

environmental and

stakeholder impacts

of ongoing changes?

Who benefits and in

what way from the

bioresource

conservation?

How are biodiversity

and bioabundance used

and valued by local and

other stakeholders

Stakeholder

and ecosystem

interactions


Improving Project Design

prescriptive tool but should be considered as asystem for guiding the process of developinglocally-specific and environmentally-sensitiveinterventions.

4.4 Concluding thoughts

In conclusion we would like to reinforce twooverlapping themes of this paper:

• That every rural development project,including agricultural projects, is location-

Box 4.1An example of good practice:

Reconciling biodiversity and developmental interests in Ghana’s wetlands

Ghana’s 550 km coastline includes over 50 lagoons, river deltas and estuaries which range in size from a fewdozen hectares to over 300 km2. Five of these sites have been recognised under the Ramsar Convention aswetlands of international importance because of their function as over-wintering points for a large number ofmigratory birds. The sites are Muni-Pomadze, a small wetland just west of Winneba; Densu Delta, a wetlandclose to Accra with a major salt panning concession; Sakumo, a small wetland bordering Tema under theauthority of the Tema Development Corporation; Songor, a lagoon complex forming the western part of theVolta delta; and Keta, a large wetland forming the eastern side of the delta. The sites encompass shallowlagoons of fresh and saline water and their immediate catchments. Besides functioning as bird habitats, thesites are used by local people for a range of livelihood-sustaining activities such as fishing, agriculture, man-grove exploitation, pottery and brick manufacture, and salt production. Economic activities have been con-ducted at an increasing degree of intensity and commercialisation which in some cases present a significantthreat to these fragile ecosystems.

Under the Ramsar Convention the principal management objective of the five sites is wise use of resourcesintended to “safeguard their ecological integrity as wildlife habitats”. Investigations carried out under WorldBank/GEF Coastal Management Project, part of the Ghana Environmental Resources Management (GERM)Project, showed that local people value the wetlands not so much for their bird life or scenery but for thelivelihood-supporting resources and services they provide. The potential trade-off between wetland conserva-tion and micro-economic interests was recognised and a Study of Development Options was commissioned byGhana’s Environmental Protection Agency, funded by IDA. The aim of the study was to identify ways that thefive Ramsar wetlands in their present largely-undisturbed form could contribute to the livelihoods and eco-nomic well-being of local communities.

A team from NRI was commissioned to conduct a detailed study of wetland-people interactions and identify arange of prospective development options compatible with the environmental objectives. The overriding prin-ciple they followed was the need to identify initiatives that benefited local stakeholders in a practical way,with particular emphasis given to the provision of economic incentives and mechanisms for local people tobenefit from resource conservation. Enterprises identified included the development of improved small-scaleaquaculture, agriculture, livestock, agro-forestry, salt harvesting, low-impact tourism and the establishment ofa field centre for environmental education and management. To support these enterprises, vocational trainingwas to be provided in technical subjects and business management, including business plan development,wherever possible making use of existing facilities. Particular emphasis was given to the identification ofinitiatives that would provide economic incentives for local people to conserve and sustainably-manage thewetlands.

Source: Grimble, Ellenbroek and Willoughby, 1998.

specific and it is critical to appreciate theimportance of local realities, particularly thedetailed interactions between local peopleand bioresources.

• That while every project must be assessed atan overall (macro) level, it is equallyimportant to consider micro-economicincentives and particularly the cost-benefitdistributions of project impact andbioresource change.



We suggest that failure to attend to these issuesin the preparation and design of projects willcontinue to lead to resistance to projectactivities, or poor uptake of messages andtechnologies, that result in less than optimalproject performance. It can also give rise tounforeseen negative impacts on groups ofstakeholders, including the poorest and most

marginal, that may undermine the broadergoal of poverty alleviation. The aim of thepaper is to develop a broad methodology forcountering these problems. We hope that itsapplication will help build effective projectsand programmes and increase the likelihood ofthem achieving what they set out to do.


Notes

1. Wild resources may be found both on andoff farm and include uncultivable rocky andmarginal areas, forests and woodlands, fieldheadlands and boundaries, and water-courses and wetlands. While oftenassociated with common land, they are alsofound on land that is held privately.

2. It would be wrong to assume that onlynatural landscapes are of value forconservation and, indeed, some of the mostvaluable landscapes are largely man-made.The Norfolk Broads in Britain, for example,is a wetland area of special conservationattention today that only exists because ofpeat mining activities in medieval times.

3. For example, consider the question ofwhether or not to destroy the remainingsamples of a smallpox virus that no longerexists in the wild.

4. Most of the world’s surface (73 percentother than rock, ice, or barren land) hasbeen significantly modified by man’s

activity (Hannah and others, 1994).Though in developing countries largeunbroken wildlands remain, fragmentationand disturbance have already given rise tospecies extinction and ecological damageover wide areas.

5. We should also bear in mind that, from theperspective of local people, the contributionof nature is not entirely positive. Localfarmers may see their management task as astruggle to ‘control’ nature, or at least toutilise it to best advantage. Over time thisstruggle normally leads to humandomination.

6. The ideas were set out in three keypublications—the World ConservationStrategy (IUCN, 1980), the BrundtlandReport (WCED, 1987) and Caring for theEarth (IUCN, 1991)—and developed at theUnited Nations Conference on Environmentand Development in 1992 (the Rio EarthSummit).


References

Arnstein SR (1969), A Ladder of CitizenParticipation, Journal of the American Instituteof Planners, 35, 2166–224.

Ashley C and Carney D (1999), Sustainablelivelihoods: Lessons from early experience,Department for InternationalDevelopment, London.

Aylward B (1991), The Economic Value ofEcosystems: 3 - Biological Diversity.Gatekeeper Series, No LEEC GK 91-03, IIED,London.

Barbier EB (1992), Economics for the Wilds. InSwanson TM and Barbier EB (eds),Economics for the Wilds: Wildlife, Wildlands,Diversity and Development, Earthscan,London.

Biggs S (1989), Resource-poor farmerparticipation in research: a synthesis ofexperience from nine national agriculturalresearch systems, OFCOR Project Study No.3,ISNAR, The Hague.

Blaikie P and Jeanrenaud S (1996), Biodiversityand Human Welfare, United NationsResearch Institute for Social Development,Discussion Paper No. 72.

Blaikie P and Jeanrenaud S (1996), Biodiversityand Human Welfare, in Ghimire K B andPimbert M P, eds. (1996), Social Change andConservation, Earthscan.

Grimble R (1996), Carrying Capacity:Sustainable Use and DemographicDeterminants of Natural Habitats andEcosystems Management, EnvironmentDepartment Papers, World Bank.

Grimble R and Wellard K (1997), StakeholderMethodologies in Natural Resource

Management: a Review of Principles,Contexts, Experiences and Opportunities,Agricultural Systems, 55 (2) 173–193.

Hanna S and Munasinghe M, eds. (1995),Property Rights and the Environment - Socialand Ecological Issues, World Bank,Washington DC.

Hannah L, Lohse D, Hutchinson C, Car JL andLankerani A (1994), A preliminary inventoryof human disturbance of world ecosystems,Ambio 23, 46–250.

Hodge I (1997), The Production of Biodiversity:Institutions and the Control of Land. InDragin A and Elgar KJE (eds), NewDimensions in Environmental Policy, 235–250.

IIED (1992), The Hidden Harvest: Wild Foods andAgricultural Systems — A Literature Reviewand Annotated Bibliography, InternationalInstitute for Environment andDevelopment, London.

IUCN (1980), World Conservation Strategy:Living resource conservation for sustainabledevelopment, International Union for theConservation of Nature and NaturalResources, Gland.

IUCN (1991), Caring for the Earth: A Strategy forSustainable Living, International Union forthe Conservation of Nature and NaturalResources, Gland.

Jana S and Cooke S (1996), Biodiversity and theWorld Bank’s Agricultural Portfolio. InSrivastava JP, Smith NH, and Forno DA(1996).

Janowski M and Zanré R (1999), PartiticipatoryInitiatives in Biodiversity Conservation:



Lessons, In Biodiversity Conservation inRural Development: MainstreamingBiodiversity Considerations in PlanningRural and Agricultural DevelopmentProjects, volume 2.

Lampietti JA and Subramanian U (1995), TakingStock of National Environmental Strategies.World Bank Environment DepartmentPapers, Environmental Management Series,No 10.

Lamboll R and Van Broekhoven L (1999),Strategies for Biodiversity Conservation:Examples from Tanzania, in BiodiversityConservation in Rural Development:Mainstreaming Biodiversity Considerationsin Planning Rural and AgriculturalDevelopment Projects, volume 2.

Michon G, Mary F, and Bompard J (1983),Multistoried agroforestry garden system inWest Sumatra, Indonesia, AgroforestrySystems, 4(4), 315–338.

Pagiola S and Kellenberg J with Vidaeus L andSrivastava J (1997), MainstreamingBiodiversity in Agricultural Development:Towards Good Practice, World BankEnvironment Paper No. 15. World Bank,Washington DC.

Pearce DW (1994), The Great EnvironmentalValues Debate, Environment and Planning, A,26, 1329–38.

Pearce DW and Moran D (1994), The EconomicValue of Biodiversity. Earthscan, London

Pretty JN (1994), Alternative systems ofinquiry for sustainable agriculture, IDSBulletin 25(2), 37–48.

Pretty JN (1995), Regenerating Agriculture:Policies and Practice for sustainability and self-reliance, Earthscan, London.

Redwood J, Robelus R, and Vetleseter T (1998),Natural Resource Management PortfolioReview, Environment Department Papers,Natural Habitats and Ecosystems ManagementSeries, No 58. World Bank, Washington DC.

Rhodes B and Odell R, compilers (1992), ADictionary of Environmental Quotations,Simon and Schuster, New York.

Scoones, I (1998), Sustainable rural livelihoods: Aframework for analysis, Working paper 72,Institute of Development Studies, Brighton.

Shawe K (1999), Measuring Biodiversity andMonitoring Change, in BiodiversityConservation in Rural Development:Mainstreaming Biodiversity Considerationsin Planning Rural and AgriculturalDevelopment Projects, volume 2.

Smith NJH (1996), Effects of Land-use Systemson the Use and Conservation ofBiodiversity. In Srivastava JP, Smith NH,and Forno DA (1996).

Srivastava JP, Smith NH, and Forno DA (1996),Biodiversity and AgriculturalIntensification: Partners for Developmentand Conservation, EnvironmentallySustainable Development Studies andMonographs Series, No 11. World Bank,Washington DC.

Wells M (1992), Biodiversity Conservation,Affluence and Poverty: Mismatched Costs andBenefits and Efforts to Remedy Them, Ambio,21 (3), 237–243.

Western D and Wright RM, eds (1994) NaturalConnections: Perspectives in CommunityBased Conservation. Island Press,Washington DC.

WCED (1987), Our Common Future, WorldCommission on Environment andDevelopment. Oxford University Press,Oxford.

WCMC (1992), Global Biodiversity: Status of theEarth’s Living Resources. A report by the WorldConservation Monitoring Centre, Chapmanand Hall, London.

World Bank (1991), Environmental AssessmentSourcebook: Volume 1 — Policies, Procedures,and Cross-Sectoral Issues, World BankTechnical Paper, No 139.

World Bank (1996), Carrying Capacity:Sustainable Use and DemographicDeterminants of Natural Habitats andEcosystems Management, EnvironmentDepartment papers, Natural Habitats andEcosystems Management Series No. 3.


References

World Bank (1996), The Impact of EnvironmentalAssessment — The World Bank’s Experience:Second Environmental Assessment Review,Environment Department, World Bank,Washington DC.

World Bank (1997), Mainstreaming Biodiversityin Agricultural development: Towards GoodPractice. Stefano Pagiola and JohnKellenberg, Global Overlays Program,World Bank Environment Paper No. 15.

World Bank (1997), Rural Development: FromVision to Action — A Sector Strategy Paper.World Bank, World Bank, Washington DC.

World Bank (1998), Biodiversity in World BankProjects: A Portfolio Review. EnvironmentDepartment Papers, Natural Habitats and

Ecosystems Management Series, No 59,World Bank, Washington DC.

World Bank (2000), Supporting the Web of Life:The World Bank and Biodiversity — APortfolio Update (1988-1999). World Bank,Washington DC.

World Resources Institute (1992), GlobalBiodiversity Strategy: Guidelines for Actionto Save, Study, and Use Earth’s Biotic WealthSustainably and Equitably, World ResourcesInstitute, Washington DC.

World Resources Institute (2000), A Guide toWorld Resources 2000-2001: People andecosystems, the fraying web of life, WorldResources Institute, Washington DC.

Biological Resource Management - Semantic Scholar · Biological Resource Management — Integrating...

Documents

Transcript of Biological Resource Management - Semantic Scholar · Biological Resource Management — Integrating...