page 1 of 21 environment: taking root: biodiversity conservation

FindArticles > Environment > May, 2005 > Article > Print friendly

Taking root: biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction come together in the tropics lessons learned from the equator initiative

Vanessa Timmer

Biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation through development have often been portrayed as opposing goals with one objective frequently being accomplished only at the cost of the other. Finding synergistic solutions has been on local, national, and international agendas for decades, in the hope that human development and biodiversity conservation can be found to be less a zero-sum game of trade-offs and more a set of mutually reinforcing goals. (1) Although there is considerable debate about the extent to which these goals can be combined, there is some evidence that solutions can be found at the local scale. The search for examples of synergistic solutions inspired Tim Wirth, president of the United Nations Foundation, and Mark Malloch Brown, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) administrator, to found an international partnership: the Equator Initiative. The Equator Initiative seeks to systematically identify and champion local community endeavors that have developed synergistic solutions to poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation by awarding the biennial Equator Prize. However, three specific areas of critique of community-based conservation approaches have implications for the Equator Initiative. (2)

First, although there has been an acknowledgement that gains in biodiversity conservation require a corresponding focus on the social side of conservation efforts, clarity is needed as to the conditions under which win-win solutions can be found to advance conservation and poverty alleviation through development (see the box on this page for definitions of biodiversity and poverty). The community endeavors identified and honored through the Equator Initiative provide some support for the position that synergistic approaches are possible. However, there is conflicting evidence as to whether identified win-win approaches exist or whether discussions of inevitable tradeoffs are being suppressed. There is also debate regarding the maintenance of synergistic solutions over time and across different local communities.

Second, the implementation of local initiatives requires insight as to the stakeholder community that is engaged and the politics that are involved in delivering the initiative. Most local-level initiatives involve not one identifiable homogenous community but a diversity of actors. Difficulties arise because the actors do not necessarily share the same values or goals regarding biodiversity protection, equitable decisionmaking processes, and distribution of incomewithin the community.

Third, the Equator Initiative's aim of scaling up the local partnerships identified through the Equator Prize raises questions about the role of local initiatives in advancing global biodiversity and development goals and the challenges that emerge in the process of scaling up. Global and local goals are not always aligned, and local best practices in one community may not be transferable to other local initiatives. There is also evidence that local-level implementation is not possible or sustainable without solutions to poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation at the national, regional, and international scales. It is these challenges that motivate an analysis of the Equator Initiative and of the local solutions to biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction it champions.

Background

The 2002 UN World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) provided an opportunity for environment and development movements to collaborate and bring biodiversity conservation and human development agendas together. In the lead-up to WSSD, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan identified a framework of five priority areas central to implementing sustainable development: water and sanitation, energy, health and environment, agriculture, and biodiversity and ecosystem management (WEHAB). (3) The inclusion of biodiversity as one of the critical areas foraction has provided a forward momentum to those involved in conservation to connect to development concerns in a more explicit way. (4) For example, the conservation community is giving priority focus to the Millennium

of 21Environment: Taking root: biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction come together in the tropics l...

09/08/2005http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1076/is_4_47/ai_n13684223/print

Development Goals (MDGs) (5) in its endeavor to clearly emphasize the relationship between biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation. (6) The MDGs outline eight specific targets for poverty eradication, education, gender equality, reduced child mortality, environmental sustainability, and the creation of a global partnership for development. Although the MDGs focus on areas traditionally of concern to the development community, the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity is becoming increasingly perceived as critical to the full achievement of the goals and sustainable development. (7) This recognition signals a "turning point in the way the global community addresses biodiversity issues." (8) Six dimensions of the contribution of biodiversity to poverty reduction and human security have been identified: food security, health improvements, income generation and sustainable livelihoods, reduced vulnerabilities, ecosystem services, and cultural and spiritual values (see the box on page 28). (9)

For local, rural poor who depend on ecosystem services for their food, clothing, building materials, medicines, and livelihoods, the goals of poverty alleviation and the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity are fundamentally intertwined, and finding solutions for income generation often rests on their ability to manage and protect the ecosystems that support them. (10) In tracing the linkages between biodiversity and poverty alleviation, it becomes clear that development for poor communities does not necessarily need to result in overexploitation of natural resources and in ecosystem disruption. In fact, to a great extent, the successful implementation of the global goals of poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation will be measured by the effectiveness of their local implementation. For the purposes of analyzing local-level implementation, the term "community-based conservation" is used here to describe local initiatives that integrate conservation and development objectives. (11)

The adoption and recognition of this synergistic approach is a recent trend. Prior to a reevaluation in the 1970s and 1980s, the conservation community equated nature protection with the establishment of national protected areas, which often involved halting human use of protected areas for livelihood needs. For much of the world, these conservation efforts historically have been driven by political elites, tied to colonial administrations, and often included the exclusion and even forced removal of communities of people from designated protected areas. (12) In the 1970s, a significant shift took place within the conservation community toward community-based conservation. This shift was motivated by discomfort with the social injustice of previous conservation efforts, demands for strategy change from the donor community, and a recognition of the need to address social and economic requirements of communities affected by conservation efforts. (13) Park boundary enforcement came to be seen as effective only if combined with a strategy of bringing together stakeholders--including local peoples--to participate in decisionmaking processes, develop protected-area and poverty-reduction plans, negotiate the costs and benefits of conservation efforts, and, more recently, adopt an adaptive management approach. (14) Sustainable livelihood plans and alternatives to exploitative use of natural resources were introduced, including such activities as the extraction of non-timber forest products, agroecology, and ecotourism. Finding leading examples of these types of alternative livelihood schemes and community-based conservation efforts is the focus of the recently established Equator Initiative.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The Equator Initiative

What began as a hopeful search for a few good examples instead opened the door to an unexpectedly large grassroots phenomenon being led by the poor themselves. (15) --Equator Initiative

The Equator Initiative was launched in 2002 in the lead-up to the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development and in support of the 1992 UN Convention on Biological Diversity. The initiative champions and supports the growing number of community-level grassroots partnerships along the equatorial belt that combine economic development with the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity--and as such, it aligns with priorities outlined in the Millennium Development Goals, the WEHAB framework, and WSSD's Plan of Implementation. The initiative seeks to accomplish its goals by raising the profile of these innovations and assisting to build the movement's capacity while ensuring that the practitioners and community leaders remain the "creators, innovators, leaders and voice of this new movement." (16) The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) hosts the administrative headquarters of the Equator Initiative and has established partnerships with BrasilConnects, the Government of Canada, Conservation



International, the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), The World Conservation Union (IUCN), The Nature Conservancy, Television Trust for the Environment (TVE), the United Nations Foundation, and Grassroots Organizations Operating Together in Sisterhood (GROOTS). (17) The Equator Initiative is focused on tropical countries that are in the equatorial belt between latitudes 23.5 north and south. These countries have the greatest concentration of biodiversity loss and are also beset by the greatest extremes of human poverty. Investigations into locally driven work to mitigate these unsustainable trends have revealed surprising numbers of local-level innovations that effectively and simultaneously address poverty and biodiversity challenges. There are two key parts to the Equator Initiative: In the first, the initiative recognizes local innovations through the Equator Prize; in the second, it supports the dissemination of lessons learned within these local partnerships and creates enabling environments for the scaling up of these local efforts.


In addition to its role as an awards program, the Equator Prize is the initiative's mechanism for identifying exemplary local community partnerships that work simultaneously toward sustainable income generation and environmental conservation. Award processes were completed in 2002 and 2004, during which the initiative received hundreds of nominations of homegrown local partnerships engaged in efforts to conserve biodiversity while ensuring a sustainable income for their communities and improvements in the lives of poor people. The nominations were submitted from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean and covered a diverse array of approaches, including innovations to restore traditional natural resource management practices; establish ecotourism ventures and build eco-lodges; adopt sustainable forestry and fisheries practices; engage in organic agricultural approaches; and harvest and market organiccoffee, medicines, fabrics, crafts, cosmetics, and other natural sustainable products. The sustainable use of biodiversity forms a central part of these local enterprises; therefore, conservation practices are intertwined in these small business ventures and community projects. Out of 420 nominations from 77 countries submitted for the 2002 inaugural Equator Prize, a technical advisory committee chose 27 finalists to be evaluated by an eminent international jury. The criteria for selection are based on three factors: the impact that the local community initiative has on poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation; the sustainability, innovation, and transferability of their approaches and projects; and the ability of the local initiatives to build partnerships, foster leadership and community empowerment, and promote gender equality and social inclusion. In 2002, six awards were granted to seven communities each with a value of US$30,000. The awards are described in a box on pages 30-35. In an unexpected and generous gesture, Steve McCormick, president of The Nature Conservancy, reflected the inspiring and optimistic feeling at the award ceremony in Johannesburg by pledging to match the financial prize for all of the remaining 20 finalists. (18) The seven winners of the 2004 Equator Prize were announced at the Conference of the Parties meeting of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity in Malaysia. The accomplishments of the finalists and winners of the Equator Prize in integrating conservation and development goals stand in sharp contrast to the belief that solutions and implementation will come solely from top-down development decisions and that trade-offs are inevitable in attempts to reconcile development and environmental objectives at the local level. In the process of designing local developmentprojects, these grassroots communities are "pioneering new and creative ways to use the natural environment as both a renewable resource and a route out of poverty." (19)

The success of these green micro-economies, grassroots business ventures, and community development endeavors are the basis for widespread recognition of the need to include local community stakeholders in policymaking at the national, regional, and global levels--while building the capacity of this driving force for sustainable development at the local level. The Equator Initiative emphasizes the significant scale of this "quiet revolution" of community partnerships. (20) Thus, in addition to the Equator Prize, the Equator Initiative has a full set of activities that include learning exchange grants, eco-entrepreneurial mentoring, youth programs, research and learning activities, public awareness campaigns, and a specific program aimed at assisting communities living in or near protected areas (see the box on page 36). (21)

These activities intend to identify win-win local community partnerships and to bring these innovations to scale by building an enabling political, legal, and financial environment and by fostering broad-based public support. The successful implementation of the Equator Initiative's activities rests on a critical analysis of its guiding assumptions of



win-win solutions to biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction, its community-based approaches to conservation, and the potential for scaling up these approaches to achieve global biodiversity and development goals.

Win-win versus Tradeoffs

In a speech focused on the Equator Prize's 2002 finalists, Alvaro Umana, principal advisor to the Equator Initiative and head of UNDP's Energy and Environment Group, stated that these local communities throughout the tropical developing world are charting a path toward true sustainable development and that their work is proof that biodiversity conservation and efforts to reduce poverty can be in harmony. (22) A central guiding assumption of the Equator Initiative is that win-win solutions can be found; however, studies have indicated that "lasting positive outcomes of conservation-with-development projects are elusive" and that "projects that seek to integrate conservation and development have tended to be overambitious and underachieving." (23) There is also a concern that "the desire to package projects as delivering win-win solutions plays down the incompatibilities between the goals." (24) The focus of the Equator Initiative on identifying these win-win examples can result in the suppression of tradeoff challenges within nominated local partnerships; it can also create a movement away from supporting tradeoff negotiations at local, national, and international levels.

A guiding assumption in identifying win-win partnerships is that social and economic development of a community will lead to a decline in their dependency on natural resources; however, this assumption has not proven to be true, with some studies providing evidence that improving living standards near a protected area increases the demand for wildlife products. (25) In addition, population pressure has driven migrants into biodiversity-rich areas and changed the composition and often increased the impact of local communities that obtain their subsistence from the natural resource base. Migration can also increase to areas that establish alternative livelihood schemes to augment the income of local peoples. Such a migration can undermine human development and conservation advances with increased demographic pressure and can create "mini development poles that in some cases vastly increase local populations and resource use demands." (26) For those cases where natural resource management has been successful, there is evidence that "resultant shifts in resource entitlements appear to have exported over-use of biodiversity to other areas." (27)


Synergistic solutions to poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation frequently depend on alternative livelihood schemes; however, experience with community-based conservation projects points to an overemphasis on the potential for alternative livelihood schemes--including ecotourism ventures, non-timber forest product harvesting, extractive reserves, and multiple-use forestry--to adequately support local communities. (28) Ecotourism ventures have a unique vulnerability that deserves noting: Problems can occur when ecotourism market size is overestimated or when tourists impact the resource base upon which the community depends through, for example, increasing pressures to build infrastructure to accommodate tourist needs. However, the greatest concern stems from the fact that fluctuations and a sudden fall in tourism numbers are often due to factors beyond the community's control. (29) These shifts are driven by such diverse factors as changes in tourism fads, shifts in the perception of the stability and safety of the country, and changes in perception of the safety of air travel. Communities that depend on a steady stream of tourists can be severely and quickly disabled by these changes. Ecotourism also faces potential problems with transferability. The Equator Prize-winning Il Ngwesi Group Ranch in Kenya is able to sustain itself through tourism visits; however, if other local communities in the area chose ecotourism as their source of alternative livelihood, this could cause market saturation. Many alternative livelihood schemes are financially supported by external organizations, including international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and their donors. This financing can distort competition with existing local businesses through the subsidies offered to community-based conservation efforts. The question then becomes whether the alternative livelihood schemes can sustain themselves without the infusion of external financial support. (30) Studies have shown that few internationally funded community-based conservation projects "appear to be economically and financially sustainable once external funding has been exhausted," (31) although some community projects, such as the 2004 Equator Prize-winning Torra Conservancy in Namibia, have been able to become self-sufficient after initial donor support.



What conditions facilitate win-win solutions? Analysis of past community-based conservation efforts has indicated that the interaction between biodiversity and poverty objectives are "dynamic and locally specific," (32) and there may be very specific conditions under which integration is possible. This analysis, published in the 12 November 2004 issueof Science, states, "Although it is desirable to satisfy the goals of biodiversity and poverty reduction simultaneously, it may only be possible under specific instrumental, ecological, and developmental conditions [such as in long-lasting field projects in small human communities in fragile ecosystems]." (33) Other studies have shown that "property rightsand social learning for fairer allocation and compensation can work well, so long as there is a legitimate form of governing, there are no unexpected patterns of change due to shifts in technology or migration, and there is scope for financial and management partnerships across a range of governmental and private sectors." (34) Analyses of community-based conservation efforts that focus on protected-area management have found conflicting results regarding win-win solutions. Some studies conclude that even after a decade of integrated conservation and development programs "there is still a notable lack of successful and convincing cases where people's development needs have been effectively reconciled with protected area management," whereas a review across a number of projectshas found "grounds for optimism within components of some projects." (35) The review cites projects near protected areas in Nepal, Uganda, and Bolivia. Successes highlighted by the review include projects that improved services within the protected areas, developed alternative livelihood schemes, built facilities for local communities, and/or conducted successful environmental education programs. Some benefits were not anticipated, such as the "improved community cohesion, and strengthened ... relationships between stakeholders and the community" within the community of migrants in Bolivia's Amboro National Park. (36)

The difficulty in identifying conditions that facilitate win-win solutions can largely be traced to the lack of monitoring and evaluation tools that can assist in identifying a causal link between conservation and poverty reduction outcomes. A handful of studies highlight the lack of monitoring data on either the social or ecological aspects of community-based conservation projects and emphasize that few projects "have attempted to link biodiversity with socio-economic monitoring." (37) Without hard data and information, it is difficult to establish whether community-based conservation projects are having the desired impact on either livelihoods or biodiversity. Reluctance to report on impacts can be partially due to concern about the impact of reported failures on continuation of funding. Counteracting this reluctance requires a donor climate that embraces error as part of the process of discovering how to integrate biodiversity and poverty reduction objectives. Monitoring and evaluation conducted through participatory processes have the dual benefit of assisting those who are managing the community-based conservation project as well as providing information about the effectiveness of the approach.

Community and the Politics of Delivering an Initiative

An essential part of each of the partnerships identified through the Equator Prize process is the involvement of a local community in the sustainability endeavor; however, there is controversy around the concept of "community," particularly the idea of a homogenous community. The vision of the community as "an organic whole, as small and territorially fixed, as under siege and eroding, or as standing in opposition to markets and states" and the belief that a local community has integrated and shared "locally evolved norms to manage resources sustainably and equitably" fails to stand up to reality. (38) In almost all cases, there is not one definable "community;" moreover, ignoring differences in values, perspective, and power within a community and differential access that community members have to layers of political decisionmakers leads to inaccurate assumptions about the ease by which collective decisions at the local level can be made. (39) The local partnerships supported by the Equator Initiative are composed of a wide variety of actors from all sectors of society. (40) Social mapping is necessary to identify the different interests within a community and the processes and means by which interests, including gender and ethnic minority issues, are pursued. (41) Processes of deliberative democracy have been suggested as a possible approach to determining biodiversity and poverty strategies and managing the stakeholder conflicts and politics that emerge in delivering an initiative. Politics arise internally and externally within a local initiative: To take an example from the 2002 Equator Prize finalists, prior to nomination, external politics took the form of criticism by research colleagues for Dr. P. Pushpangadan and his initiative of establishing a benefit-sharing scheme with the Kani people of Kerala, India. The Kerala Kani Trust was created to respect the Kani people's indigenous knowledge contribution in the development of the Jeevani anti-fatigue drug from their local arogyapaacha plant and to channel some of the financial benefits from the development and sale



of the drug back to the community. (42) The internal politics of the initiative were heightened when the first installation of these funds were given to the three original Kani informants rather than the community as a whole, and "an avoidable impression was created among the Kani tribes that the trust was supposed to benefit only a few community members." (43) This has led to political conflicts within the Kani tribes. Subsequent infusions of funds have led to support programs for poor members of the community and insurance for the care of pregnant women and for accidental death; however, awareness about the trust fund is still low, and among the Kani members that are aware of the trust, the perception remains that it will be ineffective and inequitably distributed. The long-term effectiveness of the initiative depends on political negotiations and conflict resolution within the Kani tribes and externally with those involved in the research and commercial use of the arogyapaacha plant. This type of process requires "honesty and integrity in dealing with people and nature," which can be undermined by political misconduct and illegal activities undertaken in local stewardship practices. (44) Local elite can use the conservation effort as a way of solidifying their interests, and this can have negative effects on marginalized groups within the community. (45)

Resurrecting traditional institutions or creating new community organizations aimed at conserving sustainable development does not necessarily lead to egalitarian decisionmaking processes or effective conflict resolution mechanisms. (46) The process of defining who in the community will participate and how they will be involved relies on stakeholder analysis. Unless carefully done, however, the selection of participants can exacerbate existing power inequalities in the community, lead to "inappropriate" social units for collaboration, and negate important mechanisms of exclusion within the local community, including "kinship hierarchies, wherein participants are chosen on the basis of their familial ties rather than relevance to the decisionmaking process." (47) In addition, it is important when engaging local peoples to include a wide enough spectrum of actors to ensure that natural resource overuse does not export beyond the boundaries of the community-based conservation effort. To take an example from a review of International Conservation and Development Programmes, newly designated resource entitlements for the the Lago Mamiraua Ecological Reserve Project in Brazil did not include the involvement of other communities that use the reserve area and of other areas of the reserve that remained subjected to unsustainable resource extraction. (48) The Kani people found that they had to establish a system for avoiding the unsustainable harvesting of the arogyapaacha plant, which highlights another issue that concerns community-based conservation efforts: These efforts have been guided by an assumption that local communities have historically been in harmonious interaction with their local environment and natural resource base. From this perspective, the purpose of conservation and human development efforts becomes the nurturing and reintroduction of traditional sustainable practices. However, studies have shown that when given secure land rights, some local communities have chosen to sell the land for private gain and unsustainable resource extraction rather than become stewards of the land. (49) Established cultural norms and values can certainly be important for community identity, and ignoring them detrimental. However, "not all customarypractices act to sustain and restore ... it is dangerous to presume that 'tradition' is somehow 'good' for ecosystem maintenance." (50) The ability of a natural resource base to support a local community is also changing as traditional practices shift and the demographics of a community change. The acquisition of technologies, such as guns for hunting, has increasingly impacted natural resources. Designing effective natural resource management organizations requires an understanding of the ways traditional practices and institutions have needed to change in light of internal and external conditions. Recognizing community heterogeneity and detecting variability in terms of the sustainability of traditional approaches to natural resource management is essential for avoiding potential pitfalls and, in the case of scaling up effective Equator Prize community projects and ventures, for transferring lessons learned and approaches to other local communities.



Scaling Up and Spreading Out

The Equator Prize was established to identify local partnerships that effectively integrate biodiversity conservation andpoverty reduction, and part of the impetus for identifying these local partnerships and providing the winners with a $30,000 prize is to determine how these successful practices can be scaled up. Scaling up refers to efforts that have



broader beneficial impacts through widening the number of people positively impacted by a local initiative in an equitable and sustainable way while maintaining the quality of the initiative. (51) Equator Initiative staff have undertaken a survey of the Equator Prize 2002 finalists to uncover the ways in which the local partnerships have scaled up their activities. The study found that "while successful community-led initiatives do have broad interest in scaling up, the types of scaling-up activities in which they engage are quite varied." (52) Drawing on past research, the study makes the distinction between four types of scaling up: quantitative, functional, organizational, and political. (53) Quantitative scaling up refers to a structural expansion in the size of an initiative through such things as replication, increased membership base, and geographic spread. Functional scaling up occurs when an initiative increases the scope of its activity and diversifies to add functionally distinct activities to its efforts. Organizational scaling up refers to initiatives that undertake improvements to their effectiveness and efficiency through increased financial autonomy or through improvements in management capacity. Political scaling up occurs when an initiative extends its efforts to engage in the political process and to affect political and institutional change that focuses on the underlying roots of poverty and biodiversity loss. Political engagement at the national level could include, for example, demands by local people for the integration of national poverty reduction strategies with national development strategies. (54)

The Equator Initiative report concludes that the most common forms of scaling up among the local initiatives were quantitative and organizational: These responded to the demands of their constituencies, reflected immediate needs of the initiatives, and were considered less risky than adopting new distinct activities or engaging in wider political and institutional processes that could result in "considerable financial, personal and livelihood risks." (55) However, organizational and quantitative scaling up efforts have their own challenges. Organizational scaling up challenges revolve around securing financial autonomy and devising management systems that balance efficiency with effective processes for accomplishing a local initiative's objectives. In the context of quantitative scaling up, there are concerns regarding the sustainability of alternative livelihood schemes in their spread to other local impoverished communities. A local business enterprise may depend on a specific market niche for an ecologically friendly product produced, such as the Chiapas, Mexico-based Equator 2002 finalist Cafe de la Selva's shade-grown organic coffee. This enterprise is vulnerable to market saturation if other local communities undertake to replicate the product without diversifying the type. Duplication can also lead to resource exploitation beyond sustainable yields. Harvesting natural plant extracts formedicinal and cosmetic product purposes may be sustainable if, for example, the 2002 Equator Prize-winning Brazilian women's organization Green Life Association of Amazonia (AVIVE) is one of a few organizations collecting the particular plants; however, a large-scale increase in plant extraction may quickly become unsustainable if other communities adopt AVIVE's approach. (56)


The Equator Initiative study on scaling up argues that ultimately "the simple replication of community initiatives alonewill be insufficient" and that scaling up "cannot be undertaken in a vacuum." (57) Political scaling up is important in ensuring that local efforts work to achieve global goals of poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation. Only two of the 27 Equator Prize 2002 finalists used their award funds to engage in political scaling-up; however, the Equator Initiative itself has been connecting local partnership practitioners to global decisionmakers since its inception. This objective has resulted in a range of activities: for example, developing communication materials such as documentary films, arranging meetings between local groups and potential donors, and supporting all four types of scaling up through the local partnerships. The Equator Initiative also serves as a kind of "incubator" to local entrepreneurs through eco-entrepreneur mentoring that aims to provide small sustainable business startups with business and financial advice. The initiative accomplishes this through its youth exchange program and learning exchanges that connect local partnership practitioners so that they can share lessons learned and best practices. (58) At international decisionmaking fora--including the World Summit on Sustainable Development and the World Parks Congress--the Equator Initiative has organized community dialogue spaces that create opportunities for local initiatives to engage in political scaling up "by linking local community leaders, serving as ambassadors and advocates, with policy- and decision-makers in facilitated situations that put community, national, regional and global leaders all on equal footing." (59) The interaction between local practitioners and NGO, business, government, and international organization representatives enables discussion on lessons and challenges for sustainable development



implementation at the local level, the development of enabling environments at the national and international levels, and the strategies and actions needed to achieve biodiversity and development goals.


These community dialogue sessions are particularly important in light of the fact that local priorities and global priorities are not always aligned, nor are interests within a single community. There is also some question as to "whether they are able, or willing, to scale-up their activities in ways that would facilitate achievement of the MDGs and other higher-level sustainable development targets." (60) These discrepancies are apparent in cases where local community traditional practices and beliefs regarding globally recognized endangered species, such as elephants, come into conflict with health hazards or danger these species may present to their community. (61) Although local community-based conservation initiatives to achieve biodiversity goals are important, global biodiversity goals require a mixture of protected-area and regional-level approaches to ensure the survival of endangered species and ecosystems, national-level policy to support biodiversity conservation, and local community-based conservation projects to ensure the involvement of local peoples. (62) Local solutions need to be connected with solutions that tackle larger scale trends that can influence their success. "External trends (e.g. expanding market demand or improved market access for forest or wildlife products; demographic pressures) and vested interests (e.g. illegal logging, mineral extraction or ranching) are often overlooked, or avoided, perhaps because they are considered too difficult to address." (63) Effective community-based conservation efforts require policies that ensure land rights, resource access, and supportive landowners and creditors that share concern for biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction. (64)

In balancing trade-offs between global and local development and biodiversity goals, difficult questions need to be posed: "Who decides how biodiversity conservation will occur and at what social cost? and, who benefits from biodiversity conservation?" (65) A recent Science article seeks to clarify different positions adopted in making choices between biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction and develop a typology of "four different ways of looking at the connections and disconnections between poverty reduction and conservation, reflecting positions in the current debate." (66) These positions have a broad spectrum of positions: On one end is the perspective that conservation and poverty are in separate policy realms or that poverty is a critical constraint on conservation. On the other is the perspective that conservation should not compromise poverty reduction, or that poverty reduction depends on living resource conservation. All these positions lend their support for the goals of biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction; however, the different starting points result in unique ways of engaging with the issues and often reflect the priorities initially established by biodiversity conservation or development organizations. Deciphering which of these different perspectives guide the local initiatives identified in the Equator Prize process is critical for analyzing their effectiveness and for scaling up their efforts.

Conclusion

Can biodiversity conservation goals and poverty reduction goals be combined? The local innovations that are nominated for the Equator Initiative prize present a valuable case set for analysis of this question and some support that a synthesis of these goals is possible. However, these encouraging examples are challenged by the issues identified here regarding the difficulties in finding win-win solutions, the heterogeneity of actors engaged in community-based conservation efforts, and the problems associated with transferability across local efforts and with scaling-up from the local level to the achievement of global goals. The Equator Initiative's research and learning program was established with the intent of encouraging investigation into the factors that lead to the effectiveness of community-based conservation projects as well as into the challenges these innovations encounter. Current research projects are focused on analyzing the role of community leadership, community organization, and cross-scale linkages and on measuring the impacts of these innovations on biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction. In addition, longitudinal studies of local innovations recognized by the Equator Initiative would be valuable for illuminating their evolution.

Research on each of the three issue areas identified above would further understanding on the transferability of these local initiatives and on the nature of the challenges facing them. First, further investigation is needed into the



conditions under which synergistic solutions can be advanced or tradeoffs need to be made between biodiversity and development goals. The analysis of successful and unsuccessful local initiatives in finding win-win solutions would be useful in identifying these conditions. This research would also be aided by the development and use of tools for monitoring and evaluating the impact of community-based conservation endeavors. Local community sustainable livelihood development requires support organizations such as the Equator Initiative to review existing entrepreneurial ventures, such as ecotourism, that may necessitate a complementary venture rather than duplication.

Second, in supporting local communities for developing community-based conservation programs, the Equator Initiative would benefit from engaging in social mapping to identify the composition of a community's actors and power relations. Integrating biodiversity and poverty reduction initiatives requires incorporating a broad enough spectrum of stakeholders to ensure the inclusion of groups that could have a negative impact on social, institutional, and economic sustainability. Research is needed in evaluating the usefulness of social mapping in recognizing and supporting community heterogeneity. Finally, research on scaling-up efforts and the effectiveness of different types of scaling up can build on the preliminary investigation conducted by Equator Initiative staff. A separate research agenda can be developed that focuses on the effectiveness of the Equator Initiative's community dialogue spaces in achieving their objectives of connecting local practitioners to national and global decisionmakers and influencing policy processes.

Scaling up the number and impact of successful local innovations will require that the Equator Initiative embrace the nuances inherent in local poverty and biodiversity situations while maintaining pressure on regional, national, and international bodies to create enabling environments. Community-based conservation efforts form a critical part of thesolutions to global biodiversity and ecosystem issues. However, these local innovations need to be complemented by larger-scale approaches that maintain and create protected areas and regional ecosystem corridors, that focus on shifting economic, consumption, and production patterns that are systematically detrimental to global public goods, and that develop tools for managing difficult tradeoffs between development and conservation priorities.

The emphasis on the linkages between poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation within the Equator Initiative and the international discussions at the Conference of the Parties of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the Millennium Summit, and the World Summit on Sustainable Development signals a shift in perception and a momentum toward approaching environment and development in an integrated way. Mark Malloch Brown summarizes the shift that the Equator Initiative is celebrating as "environment for development rather than environment or development." (67) The Equator Initiative is playing a critical role within this shift by identifying and supporting local innovative partnerships that have found win-win solutions to improving the lives of poor people while conserving biodiversity. The success of its endeavor to expand these individual cases to a worldwide movement will depend on a double-edged effort by the Equator Initiative: It must embrace the lessons learned from community-based conservation efforts while maintaining its valuable contribution in championing creative local solutions to addressing biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation.

NOTES

(1.) Human development objectives were prominently on the agenda at the 2003 5th World Parks Congress in South Africa, the 18th Global Biodiversity Forum in Mexico, the 7th Conference of the Parties for the United Nations (UN) Convention on Biological Diversity in Malaysia in February 2004, and the 6th Annual Congress of the World Conservation Union (IUCN) in November 2004.

(2.) For example, see A. Agrawal and C. C. Gibson, Communities and the Environment: Ethnicity, Gender, and the State in Community-Based Conservation (New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London: Rutgers University Press, 2001): S. R. Kellert, J. N. Mehta, S. A. Ebbin, and L. L. Lichtenfield, "Community Natural Resource Management: Promise, Rhetoric and Reality," Society and Natural Resources 13 (2000): 705-15; M. P. Wells, "Protected Area Management in the Tropics: Can We Learn from Experience?" Journal of Sustainable Forestry 17, no. 1/2 (2003): 67-79; J. F. Oates, Myth and Reality in the Rainforest: How Conservation Strategies are Failing in West Africa (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999); B. Campbell et al., "Challenges to Proponents of Common Property Resource Systems:



Despairing Voices from the Social Forests of Zimbabwe," World Development 29, no. 4 (2001): 589-600; and J. P. Brosius and A. L. Tsing "Representing Communities: Histories and Politics of Community-Based Natural Resource Management," Society and Natural Resources 11, no. 2 (1998): 157-168.

(3.) K. A. Annan, "Toward a Sustainable Future," Environment, September 2002, 10-15.

(4.) Water and sanitation, Energy, Health and environment, Agriculture, and Biodiversity and ecosystem management (WEHAB) Working Group, A Framework for Action on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management (New York: UN, August 2002), http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/documents/summit_docs/wehab_papers/wehab_biodiversity.pdf (accessed 31 January 2005).

(5.) The Millenium Development Goals were adopted by 189 countries at the UN Millennium Summit in 2000. UN General Assembly, "United Nations Millennium Declaration," Resolution 55/2, United Nations A/RES/55/2, 18 September 2002.

(6.) I. Koziell and C. I. McNeill, Building on Hidden Opportunities to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals: Poverty Reduction through Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity, OPINION (London, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), 2002), http://www.undp.org/equatorinitiative/pdf/poverty_reduction.pdf (accessed 31 January 2005); D. Roe, ed., The Millennium Development Goals and Conservation: Managing Nature's Wealth for Society's Health (London, UK: IIED,2004); M. Malloch Brown, "Conserving Biodiversity for Development," SciDev.Net, 23 February 2004. http://www.scidev.net/opinions/index.cfm?fuseaction=readopinions&itemid=240&language=1 (accessed 31 January 2005); C. Short, address at the Biodiversity after Johannesburg conference, Zoological Society of London, England (3 March 2003), http://www.undp.org/equatorinitiative/docs/clare_short_speech.doc (accessed 31 January 2005); J. Hyvarinen and C. I. McNeill, Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and the UN Millennium Declaration (Sandy, Bedfordshire, UK, and New York: United Nations Development Programme and Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, January 2003), http://www.undp.org/equatorinitiative/pdf/rspb_undp_mdg_paper.pdf (accessed 31 January 2005); International Institute for Sustainable Development, "Biodiversity after Johannesburg: The Critical Role of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Achieving the United Nations Millennium Development Goals." Sustainable Developments. 5 March 2003, http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/sd/sdund/ (accessed 31 January 2005); and A. Umana, "The Equator Initiative: Identifying Win-Win Solutions to Lift People Out of Poverty and Protect Biodiversity," speech delivered at World Environment Day, Berlin, June 2003, http://www.undp.org/equatorinitiative/pdf/WEDUmanaSpeech.pdf (accessed 31 January 2005).

(7.) There is a clear connection between biodiversity conservation and the seventh Millennium Development Goal on "ensuring environmental sustainability": however, Jeffrey Sachs, UN Advisor to Kofi Annan on the MDGs, has indicated that "the conservation of biological diversity is implied by nearly every one of the eight goals." See Equator Initiative, "Interview with Jeffrey Sachs," Between the Lines, September 2003, http://www.undp.org/equatorinitiative/pdf/BetweenTheLinesIssueThree.pdf (accessed 31 January 2005). Healthy ecosystems provide medicines critical for achieving goal six on combating disease. In addition, some argue that the sustainable achievement of goal one, to eradicate extreme hunger, will only be accomplished through eco-agriculture-the development of agricultural practices that are compatible with biodiversity conservation. See S. J. Scherr and J. A. McNeely, Reconciling Agriculture and Biodiversity: Policy and Research Challenges of "Ecoagriculture," World Summit on Sustainable Development Opinion Report (London, UK: IIED, 2002), http://www.undp.org/equatorinitiative/pdf/ecoagriculture.pdf (accessed 31 January 2005). Biodiversity is sometimes mistaken to simply mean "wildlife," but an estimated 40 percent of the global economy is based on biological products and processes. See WEHAB Working Group, note 4 above, page 1.

(8.) Umana, note 6 above.

(9.) Koziell and McNeill, note 6 above, page 3.

of 21Environment: Taking root: biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction come together in the tropi...


(10.) Koziell and McNeill, note 6 above. Poverty is frequently blamed for biodiversity loss and ecosystem exploitation, particularly as areas of extreme poverty often overlap threatened ecosystems. However, poverty is only one of the key drivers of biodiversity loss. The underlying causes of the impoverishment of local people is often the result of their marginalization by other powerful actors in society who have appropriated lands and resources and forced them into vulnerable ecosystem areas for subsistence. A greater threat to biodiversity and ecosystem health is posed by unsustainable production and consumption patterns, population growth, institutional and social weaknesses, market and economic policy failures, and lack of knowledge about the critical role biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services play. See WEHAB, note 4 above, page 9.

(11.) The goal of reconciling biodiversity conservation and human development needs has led to efforts that are referred to by a diverse array of terms, including "community-based conservation, integrated conservation and development, collaborative, joint and comanagement, sustainable resource utilization, participatory natural resource management and self-mobilized conservation initiatives" as well as "integrated conservation and development projects(ICDPs)." See S. Jeanrenaud, "People-Oriented Conservation: Progress to Date" in S. Stolton and N. Dudley, eds., Partnerships for Protection: New Strategies for Planning and Management for Protected Areas (London, UK: Earthscan Publications, 1999), 126; and R. Hughes and F. Flintan, Integrating Conservation and Development Experience: A Review and Bibliography of the ICDP Literature (London, UK: Biodiversity and Livelihoods Issues No. 3, IIED, 2001). The Equator Initiative refers to these efforts interchangeably as local sustainability partnerships, local community initiatives, sustainable communities, grassroots practitioners, local stakeholders, sustainable community innovation, and a variety of other terms.

(12.) P. R. Wilshusen, S. R. Brechin, C. L. Fortwangler, and P. C. West, "Contested Nature: Conservation and Development at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century," in S. R. Brechin, P. R. Wilshusen, C. L. Fortwangler, and P. C. West, eds., Contested Nature: Promoting International Biodiversity with Social Justice in the Twenty-first Century (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2003).

(13.) The social costs of protected areas has been recognized by the international conservation community since the agreement to integrate local people in protected-area planning at the third World Parks Congress in Bali in 1982. See W. M. Adams et al., "Biodiversity Conservation and the Eradication of Poverty," Science, 12 November 2004, 1146; Wilshusen, Brechin, Fortwangler, and West, note 12 above; M. Wells and K. Brandon, People and Parks: Linking Protected Area Management with Local Communities (Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank, 1992); and N. Dudley et al., "Challenges for Protected Areas in the 21st Century" in Stolton and Dudley, eds., note 11 above.

(14.) Hughes and Flintan note 11 above, page 5; and J. McNeeley, "Protected Area and Human Ecology: How National Parks Can Contribute to Sustaining Societies to the Twenty-First Century," in D. Western and M. Pearl, eds., Conservation for the Twenty-First Century (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 150-57.

(15.) Quoted in Equator Initiative, Equator Initiative: A Partnership for Sustainable Communities in the Tropics (New York: Equator Initiative, June 2003), 5, http://www.undp.org/equatorinitiative/pdf/booklet.pdf (accessed 31 January 2005). For more information about the Equator Initiative, visit http://www.EquatorInitiative.org, and contact [email protected].

(16.) Equator Initiative, note 15 above, page 6.

(17.) The initiative is a partnership amongst representatives of local groups, the United Nations, civil society, foundations, the private sector, government, and the media and continues to seek other partners. The United Nations Development Programme, the UN's global development network, leads the conceptual and program planning for the initiative and houses its operational headquarters. The initiative was designed to use existing networks and organizations facilitated by a governing board with members from each of the partners and a small management team at the UNDP's Environmentally Sustainable Development Group. This arrangement has enabled administrative costs to remain at a minimum. See Equator Initiative Web site, note 15 above.



(18.) The Nature Conservancy, "Winners of the Equator Prize 2002 Announced for Outstanding Achievements in Sustainable Development in the Tropics," The Nature Conservancy press release, 30 August 2002, http://nature.org/pressroom/press/press752.html (accessed 31 January 2005).



(21.) Equator Initiative Web site, note 15 above.

(22.) Quoted in UNDP Newsfront, 13 June 2002, http://www.undp.org/dpa/frontpagearchive/2003/june/13june03/index.html (accessed 31 January 2005).

(23.) Adams et al., note 13 above, page 1147.


(25.) J. Terborgh, "Why Conservation in the Tropics is Failing" in D. Rothenberg and M. Ulvaeus, eds., The World and the Wild (Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 2001), 81-88.

(26.) Wilshusen, Brechin, Fortwangler, and West, note 12 above, page 9.

(27.) Hughes and Flintan, note 11 above, page 8.

(28.) For example, see Wells, note 2 above.


(30.) Terborgh, note 25 above, page 86.




(34.) T. O'Riordan, "Protecting Beyond the Protected" in T. O'Riordan and S. Stoll-Kleeman, eds., Biodiversity, Sustainability, and Human Communities: Protecting beyond the Protected (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 17, which quotes F. Berkes and C. Folke, Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 6-8.




(38.) Agrawal and Gibson, note 2 above, page 12; A. Agrawal and C. C. Gibson, "Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation" World Development 27, no. 4, (1999): 629-49.

(39.) It is not simply a question of altering terminology but altering analytical perspectives. If the heterogeneous nature of a local community is recognized, the term "community" can still be used to indicate a local population



dependent on a natural resource base in a particular locality; however, a heterogeneous perspective is essential in the design of institutions for managing natural resource use.

(40.) For example, the Association of Manambolo Natives in Madagascar is a partnership between local villagers and the WorldWide Fund for Nature, whereas the ecolodge project in the Torra Conservancy in Namibia involves a partnership between local villages and the private sector. See Equator Initiative Web site, note 15 above.

(41.) Jeanrenaud, note 11 above; and Agrawal and Gibson, note 2 above.

(42.) A. Gupta, "Value Addition to Local Kani Tribal Knowledge: Patenting, Licensing and Benefit-Sharing," IIMA Working Paper 2002-08-02 (Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publications Department, 2002), 19, http://ideas.repec.org/p/iim/iimawp/2002-08-02.html (accessed 31 January 2005).

(43.) Gupta, ibid., page 26.

(44.) O'Riordan, note 34 above, page 15.

(45.) Agrawal and Gibson, note 2 above; and Hughes and Flintan, note 11 above, page 9.

(46.) Agrawal and Gibson, notes 2 and 38 above.



(49.) It is often assumed by conservation and development practitioners that, given the chance and the ownership of the land, secure land rights and ownership are anticipated to lead to greater interest and responsibility in maintaining a sustainable resource base while ensuring human development. See, for example, Short, note 6 above. This perspective has not always held and caution needs to be exercized when acting on this assumption. The decentralization of power and land ownership from the state to the local community has already led to examples of certain local groups adopting less of a stewardship role and more of the role of a private landowner focused on commercial gain. Local communities have negotiated with and signed their land rights for profit to private interests that are planning to develop the land in environmentally damaging ways. See Jeanrenaud, note 11 above.

(50.) O'Riordan, note 34 above, page 8.

(51.) M. Hooper, R. Jafry, M. Marolla, and J. Phan, "The Role of Community Scaling-up in Achieving the MDGs: An Assessment of Experience from the Equator Prize" Between the Lines (New York: The Equator Initiative, 2004), page 2, http://www.undp.org/equatorinitiative/pdf/BetweenTheLines_Issue6.pdf (accessed 31 January 2005).

(52.) Ibid, page 2.

(53.) P. Uvin and D. Miller. "Paths to Scaling Up: Alternative Strategies for Local Non-Governmental Organizations," Human Organization 55 (1996), 344-53.


(55.) Hooper, Jafry, Marolla, and Phan, note 51 above, page 11.

(56.) The learning exchange program created by the Equator Initiative is not designed to promote exact replication of successful community projects; however, possible pitfalls of duplicating efforts and cumulative impacts of community enterprises based on natural resource extraction need to be considered.




(58.) T. Banuri and A. Najam, Civic Entrepreneurship: A Civil Society Perspective on Sustainable Development (Islamabad, Pakistan: Gandhara Academy Press, 2002).



(61.) For an analysis of this conflict of perspectives involving global nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), international donors, and local NGOs and communities with examples from the experience of Zimbabwe conservation efforts, see R. Duffy, Killing for Conservation: Wildlife Policy in Zimbabwe (Harare, Zimbabwe: The International African Institute in Association with Weaver Press; and Bloomington, IN: James Currey and Indiana University Press, 2000).

(62.) Wells, note 2 above.



(65.) Wilshusen, Brechin, Fortwangler, and West, note 12 above, page 16.

(66.) Adams et al., note 13 above.

(67.) Malloch Brown, note 6 above, page 2.

RELATED ARTICLE: DEFINITIONS OF POVERTY AND BIODIVERSITY

Poverty: "Poverty has traditionally been measured as a lack of income but this is far too narrow a definition. Human poverty is a concept that captures the many dimensions of poverty that exist in both poor and rich countries--it is the denial of choices and opportunities for living a life one has reason to value. The HPI-1--human poverty index for developing countries--measures human deprivations in the same three aspects of human development as the HDI (longevity, knowledge and a decent standard of living)." (1)

Biological diversity or biodiversity:

'"Biological diversity' means the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems." (2)

(1.) United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2003: Millennium Development Goals: A Compact among Nations to End Human Poverty (New York: UNDP, 2003), http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2003.

(2.) Article 2, United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, http://www.biodiv.org/.

RELATED ARTICLE: LINKAGES BETWEEN BIODIVERSITY AND POVERTY REDUCTION

* Food security: Biodiversity loss can be devastating for local, poor populations, as a large proportion of their food source is derived from natural foods drawn from the ecosystems within which they live. Even populations not regularlydependent on local food products will fall back on natural foods in times of scarcity. Biodiversity serves an essential function as food security for all of human society because semi-domesticated and wild species provide a breadth of



genetic resources that is critical for enabling food productivity, meeting the world's food needs, and creating food varieties that are adapted to dynamic, local conditions. Soil stabilization, natural pest and disease control, livestock and fish feed, and pollination are all agricultural services provided by biodiversity. Fundamentally, food security is dependent on the wise and sustainable use of biodiversity.

* Health improvements: The majority of modern medicines derive from important information and raw materials found in natural ecosystems. Society places much of its hope for uncovering new medicines to combat disease on biodiversity. Healthcare needs for the world's poor are met by traditional medicines and treatments extracted from natural sources. They suffer directly from the loss of biodiversity, as the cost of "formal" healthcare medicines is often prohibitive. The poor are also most affected by negative health consequences of disrupted ecosystems, including polluted air and water, scarce water and natural resources, and diseases that spread because of the disruption. A diversity of food sources is not just essential for food security but health improvement as well.

* Income generation: Resource-dependent communities are not unique to the poor countries of this world; much of the world's economic growth is dependent on natural resource extraction and use. Poor populations are often the first to suffer the impact of degraded or lost biodiversity because the connection between their livelihoods and biodiversity is direct, and natural resources are a basic source of their income generation. This dependence can also be a benefit as biodiversity provides opportunities for the development of products that are unique and valuable; however, these benefits currently predominately accrue by more powerful and wealthy actors within society.

* Reduced vulnerability: Floods, droughts, landslides, forest fires, and other natural hazards are intensified in frequency and impact or triggered by ecosystem degradation. The poorest populations are most vulnerable to these environmental disruptions, which can leave them devastated without access to basic amenities such as shelter, food, and clean water. Other risks create social disruptions--such as changes in the availability of natural resources, food, and water--that can prompt or exacerbate conflict over access to natural resources and negatively affect poor communities. Biodiversity provides a critical buffer to these natural disasters and ensures a level of security and productivity.

* Ecosystem services: The productive capacity of rural and urban poor people is supported by a diverse array of ecosystem services that are public goods and not traded in the economic marketplace. Forest, wetland, grassland, coastal, aquatic, and all other ecosystems provide the water generation and purification; replenishment of soil fertility; waste treatment; nutrient cycling; and prevention of erosion, floods, and drought that are essential to all human livelihoods, especially those of poor people who are less buffered from disruption of these services. These ecosystem services provide the fundamental basis for life and the productive activities of the majority of human enterprise.

* Cultural and spiritual value: For many local communities, biodiversity forms the foundation of their evolving religious beliefs, traditional knowledge, and social institutions. These communities are enmeshed with the ecosystems within which they live, and this connection forms the basis of their collective identity and culture.

SOURCES: I. Koziell and C. I. McNeill, Building on Hidden Opportunities to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals: Poverty Reduction through Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity, OPINION (London, UK: IIED, 2002), http://www.undp.org/equatorinitiative/pdf/poverty_reduction.pdf; and WEHAB Working Group, A Framework for Action on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management (New York: United Nations, 2002), http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/documents/summit_docs/wehab_papers/wehab_biodiversity.pdf.

RELATED ARTICLE: EQUATOR PRIZE WINNERS

2002

Toledo Institute for Development and Environment (TIDE) Belize

TIDE works in some of the poorest areas of Belize and, through the Maya Mountain Marine Sustainable Livelihoods



Initiative, collaborates with local communities to promote sustainable income generation and conservation. TIDE has focused much of its poverty reduction efforts on certification programs and training, including an ongoing program to train and certify fly-fishing guides and an "ECO-OK" certification project for sustainably produced local timber. The project also supports microenterprise and ecotourism training through a tourism arm, TIDETours. TIDETours subcontracts with small community-based businesses trained by TIDE to return income to communities and promote local enterprise. Through promotion of participatory comanagement of natural resources and development of community monitoring, the project has also reduced poaching of endangered manatees, the practice of gillnetting, and illegal hunting and logging.

Fiji Locally-Managed Marine Area Network Fiji

Since its inception in 1999, the Fiji Locally-Managed Marine Area Network has grown to include communities in 6 districts and cover 10 percent of the inshore marine area of Fiji. The involvement of communities in the network has led to increases in the number and size of clams, crabs, and other species harvested adjacent to taboo areas, where fishing is prohibited. As a result, household incomes have increased 35 percent over three years and catches have tripled. Much of the success of the network can be attributed to its participatory and collaborative focus, which has ensured that local people are at the center of the network's operations. As a testament to the success of the network in protecting marine biodiversity and alleviating poverty in fishing communities, the government of Fiji has recently incorporated many of its approaches into national policies designed to protect the coastal resources of Fiji for future generations.

Uma Bawang Resident's Association (UBRA) Malaysia

In the Malaysian state of Sarawak, UBRA represents a community of less than 100 people that has successfully used blockades, and now innovative mapping efforts, to defend customary land rights and access to forestland. Critically, since UBRA's first mapping workshop in 1995, this technique has been increasingly used by other communities to legally defend their borders and secure recognition of traditional lands. UBRA also helps communities learn a wide variety of skills that provide cash income, including communal rice farming and milling, pig-rearing, handicrafts marketing, the growing of pepper and fruit trees, and developing sustainable teakwood plantations. Projects supportedby UBRA provide incomes without endangering forest resources and are complemented by work in reforestation and restoration of damaged forest lands. Since 1992, UBRA has planted 4,000 tree seedlings in degraded areas, with an average of 200 fruit trees planted per family, and is leading a new reforestation initiative focused on native species.

Green Life Association of Amazonia (AVIVE) Brazil

AVIVE was founded in the Brazilian city of Silves to defend and preserve the local environment and culture while also working to improve the quality of life of local people, especially women. Since its launch in 1999, much of AVIVE's work has focused on developing techniques for sustainable extraction of the Aniba plant, also known as pau-rosa (fromwhich rosewood oil can be extracted), as well as other medicinal and aromatic native plant species. The project also promotes the home production of natural medicines and cosmetics as an economic alternative for the women of Silves. These products are now sold in stores, catering to local consumers and tourists, and are marketed abroad to generate income for local women. The organization also leads an important environmental education program and produces seeds for the replanting and recovery of regional forests, where extractive activities threaten biodiversity. To protect the endangered pau-rosa and other rare plant species, AVIVE highlights the importance of sustainable extraction and is actively involved in the creation of a sustainable development reserve where these species can be cultivated in ways that do not imperil their existence.

Il Ngwesi Group Ranch Kenya

The Il Ngwesi Group Ranch on Kenya's Laikipia Plateau has had great success in reducing local poverty and conservingbiodiversity through promotion of ecotourism and establishment of a community-owned trust responsible for local land management. The ranch itself is a collectively owned initiative of 499 local households that incorporates an



exclusive ecotourism lodge and a locally led committee responsible for land and resource management. By limiting poaching through community patrols and leading efforts to sustainably manage local resources, the trust has helped to secure a more certain future for wildlife on Il Ngwesi and neighboring reserves. Poverty at Il Ngwesi has been tackled through the redirection of tourism revenues back to the local community. By adopting a collaborative approach to resource management, Il Ngwesi has achieved remarkable success in promoting local livelihoods without compromising the integrity of the natural environment.

Suledo Forest Community Tanzania

Harnessing local knowledge of the species-rich Miombo forests of Tanzania's Arusha region, the Suledo Forest Community has established an effective system of village-based forest management that meets the diverse needs of local people. After being spurred into action in 1993 by government plans for the use of local forests, communities have regained control over land management and have devised a system of unique forest planning zones. To add weight to community anti-poaching rules, villages have passed supportive bylaws, and members of local communities now patrol each forest zone to ensure enforcement. As a result of these interventions, villagers have access to a greater range of forest products, including sustainable timber and fruits, nuts, mushrooms, and medicines. Water supply has also improved; sustainable tree nurseries, vegetable gardens, and orchards have been introduced; and maize production has increased from 15 to 25 bags per hectare.

The Talamanca Initiative Costa Rica

A collaborative partnership of three community-focused organizations--Associacion ANAI (Association ANAI), Associacion de Peque nos Productores de Talamonica (Talamanca Association of Small Producers, APPTA) and Corredor Biologico Talamanca-Caribe (Talamanca-Caribbean Biological Corridor, CBTC)--the Talamanca Initiative has worked since 1983 to integrate biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic development in the Talamanca region of Costa Rica. The initiative's biodiversity conservation efforts include establishment of Gandoca-Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge, a last sanctuary for the endangered manatee, and development of Central America's only permanent raptor migration monitoring program. To encourage sustainable socioeconomic development, the initiative has promoted crop diversification and

RELATED ARTICLE

organic agriculture, and APPTA's processing system has become the largest volume producer and exporter of organic products in Central America. Since 1991, the initiative has also run a Regional Training Center and has helped establish 13 local ecotourism ventures. As an example of the gains that have been made through the initiative's work, scientific research, conservation, and ecotourism have become the main economic activity in the village of Gandoca, generating six times the income previously produced through turtle-egg poaching. Through the Talamanca Initiative's work, communities have been able to engage in pursuits that generate sustainable income and also work to protect their natural environment.

2003

Sociedade Civil Mamiraua Brazil

Among other successes, this innovative NGO has pioneered the creation of sustainable development reserves (SDRs) in Brazil. Through application of this novel approach to the management of protected areas, Sociedade Civil Mamiraua has achieved tangible outcomes in the areas of biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation. To protect local biodiversity, the group serves as manager of two SDRs located within the Central Amazon Conservation Complex--a richly biodiverse UNESCO World Heritage Site. Since 1992, they have worked in this capacity with communities, scientists, and state governments to ensure a sustainable future for local livelihoods and the living resources of the Amazon rainforest upon which communities so vitally depend.



Proyecto Nasa Colombia

This project takes its roots in a vigorous community of Colombia's indigenous Paez people. Together, they sustainably manage a territory of 49,000 hectares, partially located within the Nevada del Huila Biosphere Reserve on the border of Colombia and Ecuador. Since 1980 they have courageously worked to incorporate holistic strategies for natural and cultural preservation into daily life--while in the midst of civil strife and violence from conflicts in their region. To achieve these goals, the project has launched a wide range of programs designed to promote the overall health of the community and their natural environment. These activities include environmental education and the promotion of traditional medicinal and agroforestry techniques. The project's activities, while reaping rewards for human and environmental health, are funded creatively through the sale of environmentally friendly products, such as juices and objects crafted from artisanal marble. "Nasa," a Paez word meaning "living being," also describes the language of the people.

Genetic Resource, Energy, Ecology and Nutrition (GREEN) Foundation India

Over its 11-year history, GREEN Foundation has harnessed traditional knowledge of agricultural practices and seed diversity to create highly successful seed and gene banks throughout the state of Karnataka. Working primarily with a network of women's farming groups, called "sanghas," GREEN Foundation has improved food security through the creation of a farmer-based community seed supply system and through establishment of home gardens. In doing so, the foundation has forged a number of valuable partnerships between farmers and scientists. To date, GREEN Foundation has helped establish 31 community seed banks and, as a result, the number of farmers in Karnataka conserving indigenous seeds has grown from 10 to more than 1,500.

Comunidad Indigena De Nuevo San Juan Parangaricutiro Mexico

This innovative Mexican community of indigenous peoples collectively owns 11,000 hectares of forest in the richly biodiverse state of Michoacan. For more than 20 years, the community has maintained a wide range of successful eco-enterprises based on sustainable forestry, the creation of eco-friendly timber products (including production of furniture and resins), ecotourism, agroforestry, and wildlife management. These enterprises have provided a boost to local incomes while ensuring that the resource base upon which the community depends is sustained for future generations. Reassuringly, the community's successes have spread well beyond their origins as these novel conservation and business practices have been widely adopted by other indigenous communities in Mexico.

Bunaken National Park Management Advisory Board (BNPMAB) and Bunaken Concerned Citizen's Forum (FMPTNB) Indonesia

BNPMAB is responsible for comanagement and conservation of a globally significant marine protected area in North Sulawesi. Through its innovative approach to decisionmaking, zoning, enforcement and fee-collection, the board has maintained the park's rich biodiversity while responding to the needs of the 30,000 people who live in the park. A key feature of BNPMAB's success is the participation of the Bunaken Concerned Citizen's Forum (FMPTNB), which holds 5 of the 15 board seats. The forum's active and prominent involvement on the board has helped ensure that the villagers' wide experience and knowledge inform all aspects of park management. Critically, 30 percent of all entrance-fee proceeds go to local communities through a highly successful small grants program.

Rufiji Environment Management Project (REMP-MUMARU) Tanzania

Since 1998, this project has made headway in its goal of promoting long-term conservation through wise use of the lower Rufiji forests, woodlands, and wetlands. Several villages with which the group works are adjacent to the Selous Game Reserve, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. REMP-MUMARU seeks to ensure biodiversity is conserved, critical ecological functions are maintained, renewable resources are used sustainably, and the livelihoods of the area's inhabitants are secure and enhanced. Working closely with district authorities, communities, and other stakeholders, REMP-MUMARU has taken important steps in developing an environmental management plan at district and village



levels. This activity supports and furthers efforts to raise awareness and train communities in sustainable fisheries, beekeeping, and tree propagation and planting. Encouraged by the cooperation of government authorities and the enthusiasm of local communities, REMP-MUMARU is actively working toward a more sustainable future for Rufiji.

Torra Conservancy Namibia

Torra Conservancy covers 352,000 hectares of land in the Kunene region of northwest Namibia. This successful community-based conservancy was formed following passage of Namibia's unique conservancy legislation in 1996. Since then, Torra has established sustainable hunting and ecotourism activities that have earned significant profits for the entire community. Together with the private sector, it has also founded Damaraland Camp, a luxury tented lodge that has received accolades as an outstanding ecotourism destination. Damaraland Camp is fully managed and staffed by conservancy residents and has injected 1.6 million Namibian dollars into the community economy. As members of the Management Committee, community members monitor wildlife and human activity and ensure that policies for land and wildlife management are locally informed and, ultimately, successful.

SOURCE: United Nations Development Programme, "Equator Prize 2002 Winners Announced!" http://www.undp.org/equatorinitiative/secondary/awards_winners.htm; and United Nations Development Programme, "Equator Prize 2004 Winners Announced!" http://www.undp.org/equatorinitiative/secondary/2004-winners.htm.

RELATED ARTICLE: EQUATOR INITIATIVE ACTIVITIES

* Equator Prize: The prize nomination and award process will continue on a biennial basis as the centerpiece of the Equator Initiative's activities, with the goal of recognizing and championing sustainable community innovation in the tropics. A set of finalists is selected after the initial nomination process and then a further selection procedure by an eminent jury identifies the winners of the six Equator Prizes of $30,000. The Equator Prize enables the identification of inspirational examples of win-win local partnerships for reducing poverty while sustaining biodiversity and also provides the local communities with international recognition, media attention, management and financial assistance, and the opportunity to share experiences with other local communities.

* Learning exchange grants: The learning exchange grants foster developing-country intercommunity dialogue by providing the finalists of the Equator Prize the opportunity to share lessons learned and best practices in project management, small business venture development, and partnership building with other communities in the tropics that face similar challenges of poverty and biodiversity loss. These exchanges are fostered through workshops, enterprise training, and community exchanges, demonstrated at the 2002 Community Kraal at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, a dialogue space that brought together 100 practitioners from communities around the world to share insights and influence the international decisionmaking process. Exchanges have also taken place at other international meetings as well as in Africa and Central America. Participants exercise caution in encouraging direct replication and deliberately take into account unique indigenous, traditional, and local knowledge as well as cultural and ecological differences. Knowledge generation from these exchanges is critical for informing policy and advocacy efforts. Part of nurturing effective local partnerships for sustainable development is encouraging a new generation of leaders among the youth in the tropics. The Equator Initiative has launched a youth exchange program, led by Canada World Youth, among youth in developing and industrialized countries.

* Eco-entrepreneurship mentoring: The eco-entrepreneur mentoring program is based on the World Resources Institute's successful model of mentoring community-level entrepreneurs. It aims to provide small sustainable business startups with business and financial advice. Corporate volunteers and business schools such as York University's Schulich School of Business in Toronto provide advice on creating business plans, conducting market research, and securing financing for ventures.

* People in protected areas: The Equator Initiative focuses on the particular challenges facing local communities that seek to balance sustainable livelihoods, biodiversity conservation, and sustainable use, are located in or near World



Heritage sites, or are directly affected by biodiversity in these sites. World Heritage natural sites are designated by UNESCO for protection because of their outstanding universal interests.

* Making the community-to-policy connection: Local partnerships can only be effective within an enabling policy environment that facilitates their actions. The Equator Initiative is contributing to nurturing local partnerships by connecting community interests to policies that directly affect their projects and enterprises. The initiative enables local community-initiative representatives to have direct input into policymaking, monitoring, and decisionmaking within governance institutions and in the donor community by sponsoring their travel to national, regional, and international meetings and facilitating contact with decisionmakers. This contact and input will be further supported through coordinated advocacy campaigns directed by the Equator Initiative to garner mainstream backing for their stakeholder views. Creating these linkages is also essential for ensuring that local partnerships receive the policy and financial support that they require to sustain their innovative work. For Anil Gupta, coordinator of the Society for Research Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies and Institutions and the Honey Bee Network, "grassroots innovators" have not had these types of networks of influence, resources, and institutional and policy support that theyrequire to be able to innovate; in addition, they need to be supported by risk capital and enabling policies. (1)

* Research and learning: The Equator Initiative supports the analysis of the Equator Prize nominees and finalists by scholars and experts from developed and developing countries to gain a better understanding of the factors that lead totheir effectiveness and to inform policy, funding, and development priorities. In providing resources and learning-exchange opportunities, the Equator Initiative has to maintain a clear understanding of the stages and phases of local initiatives to identify where a particular innovation is within its evolution and provide timely assistance. Recognizing the dynamic nature of local initiatives is critical to providing support for leaders and the initiative as a whole. The initiative is working with community partners to analyze their project development, write case studies and policy papers, and illustrate the linkages between poverty and biodiversity.

* Global public awareness campaign: The Equator Initiative seeks to champion the local sustainability partnerships through international multimedia communications campaigns and to raise their profile within three groups: local communities, particularly within developing countries, that would benefit from adopting practices championed by the initiative; key decisionmakers and funding bodies who can provide policy and financial support for the local partnerships; and the general public, who can place pressure on decisionmakers and encourage these local innovations. The partnership with the Television Trust for the Environment has resulted in an initial 27-part television series on the 2002 Equator Prize finalists that was broadcast on BBC World. The leaders of local partnerships can also provide the Equator Initiative with clear focal points for public awareness campaigns and broad educational campaigns to promote sustainable community practices.

(1.) A. Gupta, "Learning from Grassroots Innovators: How Does a Tail Wag the Dog?" keynote lecture presented at the International Conference on Innovations in Technology and Governance, organized by the Ash Institute of Democratic Governance and the Science, Technology and Public Policy Program at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 31 October, 2003.

SOURCE: http://www.undp.org/equatorinitiative/ Equator Initiative; and Equator Initiative: A Partnership for Sustainable Communities in the Tropics (Equator Initiative, June 2003), http://www.undp.org/equatorinitiative/pdf/booklet.pdf.

Vanessa Timmer is a doctoral candidate in the Resource Management and Environmental Studies program at the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia. From 2002 to 2003, she was a Fulbright Research Fellow with the Initiative on Science and Technology for Sustainability at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. She can be contacted at [email protected]. Calestous Juma is the Professor of the Practice of International Development at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and director of the Science, Technology and Globalization Project. He is co-coordinator of the United Nations Millennium Project's Task Force on Science, Technology and Innovation whose report, Innovation: Applying Knowledge in Development, was recently presented to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan. He is a former



executive secretary of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and founding director of the African Centre for Technology Studies in Nairobi. He is a fellow of the New York Academy of Sciences and the World Academy of Art and Science, member of the Kenya National Academy of Sciences, and national associate of the U.S. National Academies. He can be reached at [email protected].

COPYRIGHT 2005 Heldref Publications COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group



page 1 of 21 environment: taking root: biodiversity conservation

Documents