Where possible the Learning Group will support – or engage in – research and other activities around three key thematic areas: policy processes, governance, impacts. Our resources for this kind of work are currently very limited but we hope to eventually establish a mechanism for supporting Learning Group members to develop activities – including workshops, dialogues and research – under these themes.
There is an explicit assumption that conserving biodiversity (or reducing the rate of biodiversity loss) can help in efforts to tackle global poverty. But the evidence base for this assumption is surprisingly weak. In 2010, IIED together with the African Wildlife Foundation and the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre organised the 2010 PCLG Symposium at the Zoological Society of London, to explore the state of the evidence base. A report detailing the findings of two “state of knowledge” reviews that we commissioned on this subject was published by the CBD Secretariat in 2010 while a book based on the symposium is available from Wiley-Blackwell.
IIED and UNEP-WCMC are now working together to systematically “map” and then subsequently strengthen - the evidence base. Supported with grants from the ESPA Evidence and Impact Research Grants (EIRG) scheme and UKAid the first phase of the project entails identifying, collecting and analysing the body of literature on biodiversity-poverty linkages. Our draft analytical framework is available at the link below. Once we have compiled our database of studies and reviewed the evidence they contain we will be consulting widely with a range of potential end-users – including researchers, policy-makers and practitioners – as to how to increase the utility of our research outputs.
We are always interested to receive feedback so please get in touch if you have any comments on the framework or would like more information about the project. Project outputs including the research protocol, the database of literature reviewed, and the findings of the analysis will be disseminated via this site as they become available.
At the PCLG workshop in Masindi in 2010, human wildlife conflict emerged as a key issue to be addressed in order to improve poverty conservation relationships on the ground. Lots of work has previously been done by the International Gorilla Conservation Programme (IGCP) and others on physical prevention and mitigation measures, but less on financial mitigation mechanisms. We developed a standard analysis framework and then commissioned a number of case studies. Interestingly, there are very few examples of successful financial schemes – whether compensation, insurance or other. Case studies to date include:
These are being collated into a PCLG discussion paper and will also feed into more detailed analysis conducted by PCLG member Care International EEGL Programme in Rwanda, which is exploring the economics of Protected Area Management (including HWC) in Mgahinga, Uganda.
Nepalese Compensation Scheme – Chitwan National Park, PCLG Case Study No1, 2012
The Kenyan Compensation Experience, PCLG Case Study No2, 2012
Namibian Insurance Scheme - HACSIS, PCLG Case Study No3, 2012
The Protected Areas, Equity, and Livelihoods (PAEL) Taskforce, the UNEP-WCMC Vision 2020 project, the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) Poverty and Conservation Learning Group, CARE International and The Nature Conservancy have joined forces to identify and develop methodologies for assessing the social impact of protected areas, with the potential to incorporate these assessments into national and international protected areas policy. The goal of the overall process is to: ‘identify/develop and evaluate a range of methodologies and tools for assessing the social impacts of protected areas that enable conservation policy and practice to better adhere to the globally accepted principle that protected areas should strive to contribute to poverty reduction at the local level, and at the very minimum must not contribute to or exacerbate poverty’.
For more information on this process see the documents below.
The PCLG Secretariat is tracking the degree to which biodiversity is integrated into national and international development policy and poverty reduction strategies.
Following on from a side event held at CBD COP8 in March 2005, the PCLG Secretariat has worked with Care International, TILCEPA and the World Commission on Protected Areas to develop the framework for a new WCPA Task Force on Protected Areas and Equity which will have a particular emphasis on promoting social equity provisions within the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas. Support has been provided to the Task Force for regional and global meetings, information synthesis and dissemination.
A meeting of the African regional taskforce was held in Uganda in January 2007 and a workplan developed which can be downloaded below. Meetings of the Asia group and the Latin America group were held in June 2007 and September 2007 respectively. Please contact Phil Franks at Care International for more information about these activities (email@example.com).
PAEL Workplan (120k)
The German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) organised a workshop on the Isle of Vilm in November 2006 to discuss the links between nature conservation and poverty reduction. During this event, a gap for principles to guide conservation activities in relation to poverty issues was found, and the need for further work on this issue recognized. Based on this, a second meeting was held on the Isle of Vilm in November 2007. During this second meeting, a draft document for guiding principles on the interface of nature conservation and poverty reduction was developed and their potential integration into key policy processes discussed. The PCLG Secretariat took part in the second meeting, and has been supportive of this process since.
The Poverty and Conservation Learning Group is an international network of organisations that promotes learning on the linkages between biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction.
This website is partly funded by UK aid and the Arcus Foundation, however the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the UK Government or the Arcus Foundation.