FB vs. FBMG

As highlighted earlier, biodiversity is continually being degraded by mainstream development processes outside protected areas (where most biodiversity is located), including agriculture, tourism, extractive industries, and so on. Mainstreaming biodiversity in other economic sectors is critical to tackle the drivers of biodiversity loss: to reduce or modify the most damaging activities, and increase investment in those with no impact or positive impact which can help re-build biodiversity assets. Mainstreaming biodiversity is also vital to create more supportive conditions for the community-led conservation efforts necessary to meet both the CBD and MDG objectives at the local level (Roe and Bond, 2007).

Mainstreaming biodiversity is a central goal of the CBD’s Strategic Plan for achieving the 2010 target (2002), and of the World Summit on Sustainable Development’s Plan of Implementation (2002). The MA also concludes that

“biodiversity will only be conserved and sustainably used when it becomes a mainstream concern of production sectors”, and that more effort is required to integrate biodiversity into macro-economic and development planning frameworks (MA, 2005b).

To date, mainstreaming discourse has largely focused on biodiversity per se without considering the components of biodiversity that are most important for local livelihoods. Given that the rural poor are often heavily dependent on biodiversity, it is important to focus on reducing development impacts on both biodiversity and related livelihoods, particularly in Southern countries with high levels of poverty. Such a focus would also resonate more with development sectors and politicians and thus potentially be easier to promote in practice. Similarly, mainstreaming or integration attempts have sometimes focused on conservation through protected areas, which remain separate to development processes and can negatively affect the poor. For example, the indicators for the MDG 7 target on integrating sustainable development principles include the proportion of land area covered by forest, and the ratio of area protected to maintain biodiversity to surface area. Without attention to governance and equity issues within protected areas these area-based targets could undermine poverty reduction targets elsewhere (Roe, 2003).

Mainstreaming is likely to require a more fundamental shift in current development paradigms (eg. the focus on GDP growth), rather than tinkering at the edges. This is the only way to ensure rising consumption does not outstrip the Earth’s systems on which human wellbeing and future development depends, and to promote local economies which are embedded in local ecologies.

There are a number of constraints to mainstreaming biodiversity which need to be addressed, not least of which is the economic constraint. As it is sometimes said, “what gets measured gets managed”. The costs of conserving biodiversity are often quite clear in economic and financial terms, eg. the cost of maintaining protected areas; or loss of returns to cattle ranching if deforestation is controlled. However, the benefits are often difficult to express in such terms. This reflects the public good nature of biodiversity: if it is conserved, nobody can be excluded from enjoying the benefits and as a result nobody has an incentive to incur the costs of conserving it.

Many problems stem from the fact that biodiversity is economically “invisible”: it is effectively “unowned”, unpriced and/or unmarketed. This means that those responsible for biodiversity loss may not be directly affected by it or aware that they are affected. It also means that holding people to account for damage to biodiversity and seeking liability redress through the courts is very difficult. However, economic valuation of biodiversity is not straightforward, partly because biodiversity itself is very difficult to measure. Furthermore, economic and financial incentives need to be aligned with ecosystem stewardship.

42

Other barriers include (Irwin and Ranganathan, 2007):

Poor information flows

• : Decision-makers lack or don’t use information about biodiversity and ecosystem services and how their decisions and goals affect them or depend on their availability.

Lack of rights and participation of local people

• : Local people lack secure rights to the land and resources they use;

and while they depend directly on healthy ecosystems, they tend not to be part of decision-making processes.

Lack of co-ordination between sectors and levels

• : management and use of ecosystems is fragmented among

many different agencies which tend to work at cross-purposes and fail to co-ordinate across multiple levels.

Absent or weak accountability

• mechanisms for government and business decisions about ecosystem services, leading to corruption.

Constraints to government mainstreaming

In circumstances like those described above, it is appropriate for governments to intervene to ensure a socially desirable level of biodiversity provision. They can do this not only by mainstreaming biodiversity and livelihoods in their own sectoral policies, plans and programmes, but also by establishing policies and incentives that encourage mainstreaming by others (eg. the private sector, foreign investors, NGOs, local communities, etc.). Improved coherence between different sectoral policies and investments should result in more efficient use of public funds (since different sectors do not undermine one another). Yet environmental protection is too often perceived as a constraint to development—environmental assets need to be recognised as producers of welfare for the poor and revenue for national economies (Assey et al., 2007). This is especially relevant to decision-making on foreign direct investment (FDI), which far surpasses development assistance. FDI poses a significant threat to biodiversity, especially in fast growing economies like India, not least because contracts are usually negotiated behind closed doors (Ayine et al., 2005).

However, the benefits of conserving biodiversity may be long-term while the costs are more immediate, raising issues about inter-generational equity. By enhancing climatic stability and ecosystem resilience, for example, the conservation of biodiversity can help to avoid or reduce the impacts of costly future environmental problems (eg.

drought, flooding). But these benefits may not accrue to the current generation. Mainstreaming biodiversity in all development activities may thus be unrealistic—particularly in financially poor countries—and trade-offs will need to be negotiated (Swiderska, 2002a).

Governments are thus constrained by political considerations and the need to demonstrate benefits to the national economy of their actions in the short term. The rest of this chapter explores these constraints and ways to overcome them, focusing in particular on economic valuation and institutional co-ordination issues.

Economic valuation of biodiversity

Methodologies exist for valuing the different benefits associated with biodiversity based on the total economic valuation framework. The total economic value of an ecosystem is the sum of the direct use values, indirect use values, option values and non-use values (see Chapter 2). In practice, it is not possible to quantify all of these values in monetary terms in a robust way and valuation of direct use values is the most advanced. However, broadening the range of values considered in land use decisions is important to give at least a minimum estimate (EEP, 2003).

Local biodiversity values can be addressed by examining the value to local people of wild resources such as non-timber forest products that they harvest from forests and other natural ecosystems. While harvesting of wild resources is often for subsistence use, there is usually some marketing of these products or of similar products so that it is possible to identify an appropriate market price. The value of NTFPs is given by the price in the market (or of a similar product if not marketed) less the costs of collection, including time spent in travelling to the site.

43

Global biodiversity, which is usually associated with non-use values, is more challenging to value in monetary terms in a credible way because it requires estimating the existence values held by individuals who often have low understanding or awareness of the concept of biodiversity. In practice, valuation studies have used proxies such as the amounts paid in debt for nature swaps (Naidoo and Ricketts, 2006), but this is not helpful in situations where the aim of valuation is to justify public expenditure on biodiversity or to provide guidance on how much should be spent.

Valuation of indirect use values is also problematic. There is still limited understanding of how biodiversity contributes to the provision of ecosystem services (eg. MA, 2005a; Ash and Jenkins, 2007). For example, relationships between natural forest ecosystems and the provision of watershed services are very site-specific so extrapolation from one situation to another can be misleading (see Box 9). Data need to be gathered on a wide range of variables at each site over time and this can be costly. For option values, the challenges of estimating direct and indirect use values are compounded by the need to make predictions about future prices and preferences for biodiversity goods and services.

Nevertheless, it is possible to express all biodiversity values in economic terms—the methods and tools exist, but they need to be used much more widely, and refined through use. The CBD has recently published guidance on valuation tools (CBD Secretariat, 2007f). Biodiversity was on the agenda of the G8+5 meeting for the first time in 2007; and as a result a study—The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (along the lines of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change)—is currently being compiled (TEEB, 2008).

Box 9. Biodiversity and watershed services

The relationships between forest cover and watershed protection are complex and site-specific as highlighted by FAO (2007) and Bruijnzeel (2004). Water flow may often increase as a result of removal of tree cover, but there is considerable variation between sites and between years because of differences in rainfall and degree of surface disturbance (Bruijnzeel, 2004). There is also some evidence that removal of forest cover leads to erosion in some circumstances, but much depends on local geology, topography and the management of the land during and after removal of forest cover (Bruijnzeel, 2004). Results of valuation studies vary considerably, with some finding that deforestation is associated with significant costs (eg., in the Leuser valley in Sumatra;

van Beukering et al., 2003), while others find that there are net benefits. Aylward et al. (1999), in a study in Costa Rica, found that the costs for hydropower developments of increases in sedimentation are outweighed by the benefits of increased water yield. Extrapolating results from other sites can therefore be misleading.

Constraints and opportunities for donor mainstreaming

Donors also have an important role to play in mainstreaming biodiversity in development assistance to reduce their impacts and channel investment into rebuilding biodiversity assets. At the recent meeting on CBD implementation, Parties recommended that all bilateral and multilateral donor agencies should promote the integration of biodiversity into development co-operation (CBD, 2007b). Integrating biodiversity conservation into broader planning frameworks such as national development strategies or poverty reduction strategies (PRSPs)¹⁸ was also recommended by the MA to ensure that resources for biodiversity are allocated in national budgets. As experience with poverty reduction strategy papers has been gained, it has become apparent that they will not be able to meet their goals without incorporating many of the CBD responsibilities. A recent analysis (Roe, 2007) shows that most recent versions of PRSPs do address biodiversity. By doing so, they will come close to the purpose of sustainable development strategies, which is to provide an overall framework for sustainable development objectives and integrate the various processes required to make the transition to sustainable development (Swiderska, 2002b).

18 PRSPs are prepared by governments in low-income countries through a participatory process involving domestic stakeholders and external development partners, including the IMF and the World Bank. A PRSP describes the macroeconomic, structural and social policies and programmes that a country will pursue over several years to promote broad-based growth and reduce poverty, as well as external financing needs and the associated sources of financing.

44

In recent years, as well as a shift to programme and direct budget support (DBS), there has been a decline in donor spending on environment, and a reduction in the use of environmental advisers in-country (ODI, 2006). With environment and biodiversity issues down the political agenda, it is all the more difficult for environment specialists to promote mainstreaming within their agencies. It seems that environment has lost out in the recent drive to reduce poverty, even though investing in environmental assets is critical for reducing and preventng poverty. At the same time, many donors continue to support economic policies and reforms (eg. structural adjustment) that undermine both social and environmental goals. Although climate change has gained significant ground in donors’

priorities in recent years, other global environmental challenges—such as biodiversity loss—lag behind, despite the clear links between the two.¹⁹

With DBS it is largely up to partner countries to determine the extent to which environmental objectives are addressed in development assistance. The limited treatment of environment in most poverty reduction strategies shows a lack of enthusiasm for addressing environmental issues in many countries (ODI, 2006). However, donor agencies still have an influence over the policies and programmes of partner countries through high level dialogue.

The problem is that environmental issues are not a political priority on either side, and hence do not usually enter the high level dialogue (which tends to focus on political and economic deals). But, as Tanzania’s experience shows (see Part 2, Chapter 8), donors can play an important role in helping to mainstream environment—whilst ensuring leadership and ownership remains with the recipient government—by responding to national and local environmental agendas, strengthening local environmental capacity and supporting participatory planning processes which engage those whose livelihoods depend directly on environmental resources.

By channelling disbursements through finance and sectoral ministries, DBS also risks depriving less powerful environmental departments and civil society/local organisations of vital funding, thus widening the power imbalance between them, and weakening capacity for environmental mainstreaming. This makes it all the more important for donors to ensure that environmental issues, capacities and resources do not fall off the agenda and that they still fund environment departments and local organisations. The UNDP-UNEP Poverty-Environment Initiative has launched a set of country programmes to strengthen capacity for mainstreaming environment into development processes.²⁰ The “One UN” country progr ammes for improving co-ordination also provide an opportunity to integrate biodiversity issues into development programmes (CBD, 2007b).

Institutional constraints and opportunities

Experience to date has highlighted the following institutional constraints to mainstreaming biodiversity:

Weak environment/biodiversity departments

• : most environment and biodiversity departments are politically

weak policy units which are chronically under-resourced (ODI, 2007).

The sectoral structure of governments:

• environment departments are separate from those responsible for finance, planning and development which control the bulk of investment. This is reinforced by educational systems which rarely encourage cross-sectoral thinking or approaches (Swiderska, 2002b).

Resistance to co-ordination:

• where cross-sectoral committees have been set up to improve environmental integration, these have often not worked effectively because of turf battles between departments. Different departments tend to jealously guard their interests and avoid collaboration with their “competitors” as they are vying for scarce resources (Swiderska, 2002b).

Absence of high-level political support:

• environment issues tend to be low on the political agenda. Without a

high-level mandate for mainstreaming environment, it is difficult to get other sectors to take the issue seriously.

There is often a lack of awareness of the role of environmental and biodiversity resources in sustaining national

19 Although Norad has identified biodiversity as its main environmental priority, above climate change, and Sida has established a dedicated technical support agency to address biodiversity and development issues (SwedBio).

20 see: http://www.unpei.org

45

economies and rural livelihoods, and of the revenues that can be generated by investing in them (Swiderska, 2002a; Assey et al., 2007).

Lack of attention to political processes:

• focusing on mainstreaming as a technical issue alone is unlikely to succeed (Assey et al., 2007; Dalal-Clayton and Bass, 2002; Swiderska, 2002a). Past efforts to develop national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs, see below) and mainstream biodiversity have largely been technical environment sector initiatives. There is growing recognition of the need to establish a participatory process, and get environment issues reflected in budgets (eg. see Carew-Reid, 2002), but the importance of political processes to get high-level buy-in has often been under-estimated.

Weak technical and analytical capacity and tools for addressing environmental opportunities and challenges

• (eg.

Strategic Environmental Assessment): these remain at a relatively early stage of development and are given lower priority than traditional economic planning tools (eg. cost-benefit analysis) in making development decisions (ODI, 2007).

Lack of attention to poverty and development by the environment sector:

• the environment is still largely seen as

a marginal green concern rather than being central to peoples’ lives and development. Environment specialists and convention processes still give limited attention to social and economic objectives, and sectoral ministries responsible for land, natural resources and development are rarely involved in international negotiations (Swiderska, 2002b; Roe and Bond, 2007). To engage development sectors, environment specialists need to focus on the linkages with poverty and development. As well as compiling data and case studies, this might involve, for example, supporting local environmental NGOs and CBOs and participatory processes to enhance the voice and influence of local people who depend on biodiversity and natural resources.

The CBD Working Group on Implementation identified the need to engage with existing planning processes to mainstream biodiversity in poverty reduction strategies, national strategies for the MDGs and national strategies for sustainable development (NSSDs); and to strengthen co-ordination between the different MEA implementation processes at national level (CBD Secretariat, 2007d). Given the large number of cross-sectoral priorities to be mainstreamed, identifying synergies between them can simplify this process (Swiderska, 2002b; Assey et al., 2007).

Strategies for sustainable development (see below) can provide a framework for linking different environment and development planning processes. A cross-ministerial process could be established, which also involves civil society, to develop sustainable development priorities and criteria, so that these can then be used to screen sectoral policy and plans to integrate sustainable development priorities, including biodiversity (Swiderska, 2002b).

5.2. Improving the planning process for national biodiversity strategies