Evidence-based conservation: lessons from the Lower Mekong

Terry SunderlandTree cover transitions and investment in

a multicolored economyCIFOR, Bogor

13th March 2013

• Considerable gap between science of conservation biology and implementation of biodiversity projects

• Science is often failing to inform conservation practice which remains more “experience-based”

• Main constraint is poor reporting at ground level and thus accessibility of evidence on effectiveness of differing interventions is limited

• Evidence-based approaches modelled on systematic reviews being applied in wide range of policy arenas, including conservation

Background

• “Losing less and winning more: Building capacity to go beyond the trade-offs between conservation and development in the Lower Mekong” (funded by MacArthur Foundation, 2006-2010)

• Project goal: “To enable organisations working on the ground in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Vietnam to achieve better biodiversity and human well-being outcomes of their projects”

• Evolved into more comprehensive systematic review of landscape-scale integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs) in Lower Mekong

A response

THINKING beyond the canopy

Study region

• The Lower Mekong – biodiversity hotspot of global significance

• Major threats: habitat loss, infrastructure development, land grabbing, wildlife trade

• Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam (15 sites):• Forested landscapes (> 10,000

ha)• History of conservation

intervention in previous 7-10 years

• Difficulty justifying protectionist approaches alone• Inclusion of poverty alleviation strategies • Integrated Conservation and Development Project (ICDP)

approach introduced in the 1980s• Integrated approaches focus on PA’s but in the context of the

wider landscape (buffer zone)• Previous studies of these missed the “landscape” context• Very little critical analysis of ICDPs in the Lower Mekong• What strategies have contributed to the achievements of

landscape scale integrated conservation and development projects in the countries of the Lower Mekong?

Context

Research

• Landscape trends and threats analysis• ICDP comparison (multi-variate analysis, qualitative assessment of

outcomes) = analysis of organisational strategies• Governance and policy review• Land cover change• Potential for rewards mechanisms (PES, REDD+)• “Best practice” for integrating conservation and development

Threats analysis

ICDP Comparison: what do projects actually do?

Governance and policy review

• Plethora of global, regional and national conventions, laws, regulations

• On paper, extremely comprehensive• In practice, effectiveness limited by low capacity, low budgets and

competing land claims

Land cover change

• Surprisingly, majority of protected areas experiencing low levels of deforestation and tree cover loss

• HOWEVER, significant degradation outside of PA’s

Potential for reward mechanisms (PES, REDD+)

• PES is seen as a “win-win” for conservation and development• Strong legislative framework for PES (e.g. Vietnam)• Implementation is complex and beneficiaries often unclear• None of the sites surveyed have established PES schemes• Thus potential for REDD+ is uncertain• Much to learn from the past (e.g. ICDPs), especially conditionality

Project implementation “best practice”

THINKING beyond the canopy

The evidence base

Projects are very sensitive to perceived evaluationTendency for projects to over-report successVery little or no actual monitoring of any sortTrade-offs rather than win-win scenarios are more commonly experiencedThe term “ICDP” has been applied far less; landscapes are now point of referenceMuch to learn from ICDP-type initiatives for PES/REDD+, e.g. community engagement, policy processesShared learning very important to avoid repeated failures

THINKING beyond the canopy

Recommendations

Projects with clear and plausible goals and objectives from the start have better outcomesStakeholder participation and partnerships are criticalProjects must be implemented with a full understanding of policy processesProvide alternative livelihoods and understand linkagesGreater integration at landscape scaleLonger-term time scales = better outcomes

THINKING beyond the canopy

Read more…

Sunderland, T., J. Sayer & H. Minh-Ha. 2013. Evidence-based conservation: lessons from the Lower Mekong. Earthscan from Routledge, London