Conservation Incentives and Conservation Incentives and EquityEquity

COP8:COP8: Purpose of positive incentives: Purpose of positive incentives: Positive Positive incentive measures can influence decision-incentive measures can influence decision-making by recognizing and rewarding – making by recognizing and rewarding – through monetary and non-monetary means – through monetary and non-monetary means – activities that are carried out for conservation activities that are carried out for conservation and sustainable use.and sustainable use.

COP7 (PAs POW):COP7 (PAs POW): Identify and establish Identify and establish positive incentives that support the integrity positive incentives that support the integrity and maintenance of protected areas and the and maintenance of protected areas and the involvement of indigenous and local involvement of indigenous and local communities and stakeholders in communities and stakeholders in conservation. conservation.

Case Study: Mountain Gorilla Protected Case Study: Mountain Gorilla Protected AreasAreas

Local CostsLocal Costs

Reduced/lost access to forest resourcesReduced/lost access to forest resources Reduced/lost access to cultural sitesReduced/lost access to cultural sites Crop damage by wildlifeCrop damage by wildlife Restrictions on road developmentRestrictions on road development Labour inputs to assist PA managementLabour inputs to assist PA management Lost opportunity to convert to agricultureLost opportunity to convert to agriculture

Local BenefitsLocal Benefits

Water availabilityWater availability NTFP availabilityNTFP availability EmploymentEmployment Tourism-based enterpriseTourism-based enterprise PA-related projects supporting PA-related projects supporting

agricultural production and income agricultural production and income generationgeneration

Mountain Gorilla Protected Mountain Gorilla Protected AreasAreas

Distribution of forest benefits & costs

-11.7

12.2

195.9

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

Local net loss* National gain** International netgain***

US

$ m

illi

on

s p

er y

ear

Costs to Local Communities Costs to Local Communities versus PA Authorities: Lake versus PA Authorities: Lake

Mburo NP Mburo NP Management cost to Uganda Wildlife Authority Management cost to Uganda Wildlife Authority

$370,000 $370,000 Total benefits to Local Community $230,000/yearTotal benefits to Local Community $230,000/year Total costs to communities $700,000/yearTotal costs to communities $700,000/year NetNet cost to communities $470,000/year cost to communities $470,000/year Cost to communities > cost to the PA Authority Cost to communities > cost to the PA Authority

also likely to be the case in Bwindi and Mgahinga NPsalso likely to be the case in Bwindi and Mgahinga NPs

Adapted from: Sustainable Financing of Protected Areas (IUCN, Adapted from: Sustainable Financing of Protected Areas (IUCN, 2005)r2005)r

Local Benefits - UgandaLocal Benefits - Uganda

Water availabilityWater availability NTFP availabilityNTFP availability EmploymentEmployment Tourism-based enterpriseTourism-based enterprise PA-related projects supporting agricultural PA-related projects supporting agricultural

production and income generationproduction and income generation Tourism revenue sharingTourism revenue sharing Conservation Trust Fund – MBIFCTConservation Trust Fund – MBIFCT

Tourism Revenue Sharing: Tourism Revenue Sharing: 1996-20001996-2000

Funds derived from tourism revenue Funds derived from tourism revenue Funded 19 community projects up to Funded 19 community projects up to

5km from PA – schools, health 5km from PA – schools, health centres, roadscentres, roads

Total funds disbursed: $76,000 Total funds disbursed: $76,000 (average of $4000 per project)(average of $4000 per project)

Implemented by the PA authority with Implemented by the PA authority with INGO supportINGO support

MBIFCT: MBIFCT: 1996-20001996-2000

An endowment fund supported by An endowment fund supported by World Bank – GEF and USAIDWorld Bank – GEF and USAID

Funded c 50 community projects up to Funded c 50 community projects up to 15km from the PA, mostly schools & 15km from the PA, mostly schools & health centreshealth centres

Total funds disbursed c$250,000Total funds disbursed c$250,000 Implemented by an independent Trust Implemented by an independent Trust

Percentage of people citing factors causing Percentage of people citing factors causing decrease in illegal activities:decrease in illegal activities:

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Law enforcement

Agricultural improvement programmes

Trust support for community projects

Tree & Bamboo Planting

Community benefits from tourism

Access to forest resources

Revenue sharing

Conservation education/awareness

Gravity water scheme (Mgahinga)

Batwa resettlement

Problem animal control

Park-related employment

Other reasons

Don't know

Percentage of people citing each factors causing Percentage of people citing each factors causing improved attitudesimproved attitudes

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Agricultural improvement programmes

TRUST support for community projects

Revenue sharing

Community benefits from tourism

Access to forest resources

Tree & Bamboo Planting (i.e. substitution)

Park-related employment

Conservation education/awareness

Problem animal control

Law enforcement

Batwa resettlement

Gravity water scheme (Mgahinga)

Reduced illegal activities

Rangers allow resource access

Park improved security

Access to micro-funds

Other reasons

Distribution of Costs and Distribution of Costs and Benefits within CommunitiesBenefits within Communities

Poorer households are more dependent on PA resources and more impacted by Poorer households are more dependent on PA resources and more impacted by restrictions on accessrestrictions on access

Benefits from MBIFCT relatively evenly distributed relative to other ICD interventionsBenefits from MBIFCT relatively evenly distributed relative to other ICD interventions

Extent of benefit from MBIFCT projects among wealth categories (Chi square = 0.89, df=3, p<0.827)

0102030405060708090

100

Overall 1 2 3 4

Wealth categories

% b

enef

itin

g

No benefits

Benefits

Conservation Incentives:Conservation Incentives:Some LessonsSome Lessons

Investment in social infrastructure proved successful Investment in social infrastructure proved successful in terms of conservation (contrary to ICD in terms of conservation (contrary to ICD experience).experience).

Revenue sharing initially more cost effective (more Revenue sharing initially more cost effective (more conservation per $) because of stronger linkage to PA conservation per $) because of stronger linkage to PA BUT has run into problems as linkage to conservation BUT has run into problems as linkage to conservation weakened by increasing role of local governmentweakened by increasing role of local government

MBIFCT would have more conservation impact if MBIFCT would have more conservation impact if more focused on people most affected by the PAmore focused on people most affected by the PA

Despite small funding levels these incentive Despite small funding levels these incentive mechanisms can make a substantial contribution to mechanisms can make a substantial contribution to conservation and equity conservation and equity if carefully targeted.if carefully targeted.

Why address Equity?Why address Equity?

Practical argument: Practical argument: Modern democracies will find Modern democracies will find it difficult to sustain conservation approaches that it difficult to sustain conservation approaches that disadvantage indigenous and local communities disadvantage indigenous and local communities who increasingly have a political voice. who increasingly have a political voice.

Moral argument: Moral argument: It is unacceptable that the cost It is unacceptable that the cost of conserving globally important biodiversity of conserving globally important biodiversity should continue to fall disproportionately on the should continue to fall disproportionately on the shoulders of the poorest of the poor.shoulders of the poorest of the poor.

BUT can we afford to address equity in a time of BUT can we afford to address equity in a time of conservation crisis & funding constraints? conservation crisis & funding constraints?

Incentives, Equity and the Incentives, Equity and the CBD: Back-sliding on the CBD: Back-sliding on the

conceptconcept COP1: “priorities of the financial mechanism: i)

innovative measures, including …economic incentives…., including those which assist developing countries to address situations where opportunity costs are incurred by local communities and to identify … means by which these can be compensated, in accordance with article 11”

COP6: “any conservation measure has some impact on COP6: “any conservation measure has some impact on stakeholders; incentive measures should take into stakeholders; incentive measures should take into account those who benefit and those who assume the account those who benefit and those who assume the cost of that measure”. cost of that measure”.

COP8: COP8: no longer any reference to compensation for local costsno longer any reference to compensation for local costs Purpose of monetary incentives “to create a differential in

favour of desirable activities where it is not feasible to discourage the undesirable alternatives through other measures” (ie a last resort)

Incentives, Equity and the Incentives, Equity and the CBD: Back-sliding on financingCBD: Back-sliding on financing

CBD 1992: “The developed country Parties shall provide new and additional financial resources to enable developing country Parties to meet the agreed full incremental costs to them of implementing measures which fulfill the obligations of this Convention”

Where global conservation goals require more Where global conservation goals require more restrictions on the use of biodiversity resources by restrictions on the use of biodiversity resources by indigenous and local communities than might otherwise indigenous and local communities than might otherwise be the case, these opportunity costs are genuinely be the case, these opportunity costs are genuinely incremental costs. incremental costs.

Financial obligations of developed countries weakened Financial obligations of developed countries weakened by weak accountability mechanisms and conditionalities by weak accountability mechanisms and conditionalities e.g.e.g. Recurrent costs excluded, thus start-up cost only (i.e. projects)Recurrent costs excluded, thus start-up cost only (i.e. projects) Opportunity costs excluded (though in theory acceptable)Opportunity costs excluded (though in theory acceptable)

to the point where a to the point where a right right has become has become aa privilege??privilege??