Given the intricate link between biodiversity and poverty, this article critically reflects on the role of mainstreaming biodiversity in development policy and practice. In order to better understand the operational challenges ‘on the ground’, we present some of the dominant development frameworks within which development organizations operate, all with a view to better understand how aid ‘thinks’ and ‘works’. The article then examines the concept of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) as a potential avenue to mainstream biodiversity into development.
AgrawalA. and RedfordK.2005: Poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation: Shooting in the dark (WCS Working Paper No. 26). Wildlife Conservation Society – WCS.
2.
ArriagadaR. and PerringsC.2013: Making payments for ecosystem services work. In ThiawIbrahim and KumarPushpam, editors, Values, payments and institutions for ecosystem management: A developing country perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing, 76-109.
3.
BakewellO. and GarbuttA.2005: The use and abuse of the logical framework approach. Sida Stockholm.
4.
BarrettC.B. and ArceseP.1995: Are integrated conservation-development projects (ICDPs) sustainable? On the conservation of large mammals in sub-Saharan Africa. World Development, 23, 1073–84. doi:10.1016/0305-750X(95)00031-7
5.
BenjaminL.M.2008: Account space: How accountability requirements shape nonprofit practice. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quaterly, 37, 201–223. doi:10.1177/0899764007301288
6.
BoccalettiG.2013: NGO recruiters are missing a trick by overlooking expert talent. The Guardian.
7.
BornsteinL.2006: Systems of accountability, webs of deceit? Monitoring and evaluation in South African NGOs. Development, 49, 52–61. doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.1100261
8.
BoydE., MayP., ChangM. and VeigaF.C.2007: Exploring socioeconomic impacts of forest based mitigation projects: Lessons from Brazil and Bolivia. Environmental Science & Policy, 10, 419–33. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2007.03.004
9.
BozmoskiA.S. and HultmanN.E.2010: Participant perceptions of risk and benefit in carbon forestry: Evidence from Central Tanzania. Journal of Environment and Development, 19, 4–27. doi:10.1177/1070496509353538
10.
CardinaleB.J., DuffyJ.E., GonzalezA., . 2012: Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature, 486, 59–67. doi:10.1038/nature11148
11.
CavendishW.2000: Empirical regularities in the poverty-environment relationship of rural households: Evidence from Zimbabwe. World Development, 28, 1979–2003. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00066-8
12.
CBD. 2009: Report of the expert meeting on mainstreaming biodiversity in development cooperation (Report No. UNEP/CBD/EM-BD&DC/1/2). UNEP, Montreal.
13.
ChiesuraA. and de GrootR.2003: Critical natural capital: A socio-cultural perspective. Ecological Economics, 44, 219–31. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00275-6
14.
CorberaE.2012: Problematizing REDD+ as an experiment in payments for ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environment Sustainability, 4, 612–19. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2012.09.010
15.
CorberaE. and BrownK.2010: Offsetting benefits? Analyzing access to forest carbon. Environment and Planning A, 42, 1739–61. doi:10.1068/a42437
16.
CrawfordP. and BryceP.2003: Project monitoring and evaluation: A method for enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of aid project implementation. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 363–73. doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00060-1
17.
Dalal-ClaytonD.B. and BassS.2009: The challenges of environmental mainstreaming: Experience of integrating environment into development institutions and decisions. IIED.
18.
DarS. and CookeB., editors, 2013: The new development management: Critiquing the dual modernization. Zed Books Ltd.
19.
DawT., BrownK., RosendoS. and PomeroyR.2011: Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: The need to disaggregate human well-being. Environmental Conservation, 38, 370–79.
20.
DeardenP. and KowalskiB.2003: Programme and Project Cycle Management (PPCM): Lessons from South and North. Development Practice, 13, 501–14. doi:10.1080/0961452032000125875
21.
Degnbol-MartinussenJ. and Engberg-PedersenP.2005: Aid: Understanding international development cooperation. Zed Books Ltd.
22.
EbrahimA.2003: Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development, 31, 813–29. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00014-7
23.
EdwardsM.1989: The irrelevance of development studies. Third World Quarterly, 11, 116–36.
24.
EhrlichP. and EhrlichA.1981: Extinction: The causes and consequences of the disappearance of species. Random House.
25.
FalkinghamJ. and NamazieC.2002: Measuring health and poverty: A review of approaches to identifying the poor. DFID Health Systems Resource Centre.
26.
FisherM.2004: Household welfare and forest dependence in Southern Malawi. Environment and Development Economics, 9, 123–30. doi:10.1017/S1355770X03001372
27.
FisherJ.A., PatenaudeG., MeirP.. 2013: Strengthening conceptual foundations: Analysing frameworks for ecosystem services and poverty alleviation research. Global Environmental Change, 23, 1098–111. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.04.002
28.
FisherJ.A., PatenaudeG., GiriK.. 2014: Understanding the relationships between ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: A conceptual framework. Ecosystem Services, 7, 34–45. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.08.002
29.
GasperD.2000: Evaluating the ‘logical framework approach’ towards learning-oriented development evaluation. Public Administration and Development, 20, 17.
30.
Grieg-GranM., PorrasI. and WunderS.2005: How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America. World Development, 33, 1511–27. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.05.002
31.
GrimaN., SinghS.J., SmetschkaB. and RinghoferL.2016: Payment for ecosystem services (PES) in Latin America: Analysing the performance of 40 case studies. Ecosystem Services, 17, 24–32. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.010
32.
HintonR. and GrovesL.2013: Inclusive aid: Changing power and relationships in international development. Earthscan.
33.
Hirsch HadornG., Hoffmann-RiemH., Biber-KlemmS.. 2008: Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer.
34.
HuntleyB.J.2014: Good news from the South: Biodiversity mainstreaming—A paradigm shift in conservation?South African Journal of Science, 110, 1–4. doi:10.1590/sajs.2014/a0080
35.
HuntleyB.J. and RedfordK.H.2014: Mainstreaming biodiversity in practice: A STAP advisory document. Global Environment Facility.
36.
IngramJ.C., WilkieD., ClementsT.. 2014: Evidence of payments for ecosystem services as a mechanism for supporting biodiversity conservation and rural livelihoods. Ecosystem Services, 7, 10–21. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.12.003
37.
KlasenS.2008: Economic growth and poverty reduction: Measurement issues using income and non-income indicators. World Development, 36, 420–45. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.03.008
38.
KontogianniA., SkourtosM.S., LangfordI.H., BatemanI.J. and GeorgiouS.2001: Integrating stakeholder analysis in non-market valuation of environmental assets. Ecological Economics, 37, 123–38. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00270-6
39.
Landell-MillsN. and PorrasI.T.2002: Silver bullet of fools’ gold? A global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).
40.
LangD.J., WiekA., BergmannM.. 2012: Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7, 25–43. doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x
41.
LarsonA.M. and SotoF.2008: Decentralization of natural resource governance regimes. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33, 213–39. doi:10.1146/annurev.environ.33.020607.095522
42.
LittleP.D., SmithK., CellariusB.A., CoppockD.L. and BarrettC.2001: Avoiding disaster: Diversification and risk management among East African Herders. Development and Change, 32, 401–33. doi:10.1111/1467-7660.00211
43.
MaceG.M., NorrisK. and FitterA.H.2012: Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A multilayered relationship. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27, 19–26. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006
44.
McCauleyD.J.2006: Selling out on nature. Nature, 443, 27–28. doi:10.1038/443027a
45.
MEA. 2005: Millennium ecosystem assessment, general synthesis report. Island Press.
46.
MilderJ., ScherrS. and BracerC.2010: Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries. Ecology and Society, 15. doi:10.5751/ES-03098-150204
47.
MolnarA., ScherrS.J. and KhareA.2004: Who conserves the world’s forests? Community-driven strategies to protect forests and respect rights. Forest Trends.
48.
MosseD.2004: Is good policy unimplementable? Reflections on the ethnography of aid policy and practice. Development and Change, 35, 639–71. doi:10.1111/j.0012-155X.2004.00374.x
49.
Muñoz-PiñaC., GuevaraA., TorresJ.M. and Braña VarelaJ.2008: Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico’s forests: Analysis, negotiations and results. Ecological Economics, 65, 725–36.
50.
MuradianR., CorberaE., PascualU., KosoyN. and MayP.H.2010: Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 69, 1202–08. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.006
51.
MuriithiN. and CrawfordL.2003: Approaches to project management in Africa: Implications for international development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 309–19. doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00048-0
52.
NarayanD., ChambersR., ShahM.K. and PeteschP.2000: Voices of the poor: Crying out for change. World Bank Publications.
53.
PagiolaS., ArcenasA. and PlataisG.2005: Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America. World Development, 33, 237–53. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.07.011
54.
PereiraA.G. and FuntowiczS.2006: Knowledge representation and mediation for transdisciplinary frameworks: Tools to inform debates, dialogues & deliberations. International Journal of Transdisciplinarity Research, 1, 34–50.
55.
PetersJ.1998: Transforming the Integrated Conservation and Development, Project (ICDP) approach: Observations from the Ranomafana National Park Project, Madagascar. Journal of Agricultural and Environment Ethics, 11, 17–47. doi:10.1023/ A:1007796628731
56.
PohlC. and Hirsch HadornG.2007: Principles for designing transdisciplinary research, Proposed by the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences. Oekom Verlag.
57.
PorrasI., Grieg-GranM. and NevesN.2008: All that glitters: A review of payments for watershed services in developing countries (Issue Brief No. Natural Resource Issues 1.1). International Institute for Environment and Development.
58.
RamalingamB.2013: Aid on the edge of chaos. Oxford University Press.
59.
Rodríguez de FranciscoJ.C. and BoelensR.2014: Why power matters in payments for environmental services (PES) (DIE Briefing Paper 2014.9). German Development Institute – GDI.
60.
RoeD.2010: Whither biodiversity in development? The integration of biodiversity in international and national poverty reduction policy. Biodiversity, 11, 13–18. doi:10.1080/14888386.2010.9712641
61.
RoeD. and MapendembeA.2010: Biodiversity and development mainstreaming: A state of knowledge review. IIED.
62.
SchwilchG., BachmannF., ValenteS.. 2012: A structured multi-stakeholder learning process for sustainable land management. Journal of Environmental Management, 107, 52–63. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.023
63.
SpaargarenG., MolA.P.J. and ButtelF.H.2000: Environment and global modernity. SAGE Publications.
64.
SwallowB., Meinzen-DickR.S. and van NoordwijkM.2005: Localizing demand and supply of environmental services: Interactions with property rights, collective action and the welfare of the poor. CGIAR Systemwide Program on Collective Action and Property Rights, International Food Policy Research Institute
65.
SwiderskaK.2002: Mainstreaming biodiversity in development policy and planning: A review of country experience. IIED.
66.
UchidaE., XuJ., XuZ. and RozelleS.2007: Are the poor benefiting from China’s land conservation program?Environment and Development Economics, 12, 593. doi:10.1017/S1355770X07003713
67.
United Nations. 2014: The millennium development goals report 2014. UN General Assembly.
68.
United Nations. 2015: Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. UN General Assembly.
69.
WiggeringH., DalchowC., GlemnitzM.. 2006: Indicators for multifunctional land use—Linking socio-economic requirements with landscape potentials. Ecological Indicators, 6, 238–49. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.08.014
70.
WunderS.2005: Payments for environmental services: Some nuts and bolts (Occasional Paper No. 42). CIFOR, Bogor.
71.
WunderS. and AlbánM.2008: Decentralized payments for environmental services: The cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador. Ecological Economics, 65, 685–98. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.11.004
72.
WunderS. and Wertz-KanounnikoffS.2009: Payments for ecosystem services: A new way of conserving biodiversity in forests. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 28, 576–96. doi:10.1080/10549810902905669
73.
WunderS., EngelS. and PagiolaS.2008: Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics65, 834–52.
