Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCooper, Rachel
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-24T15:41:31Z
dc.date.available2020-03-24T15:41:31Z
dc.date.issued2020-03-18
dc.identifier.citationCooper, R.(2020).Biodiversity conservation and restoration, and poverty reduction. K4D Helpdesk Report 773. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studiesen
dc.identifier.urihttps://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/15180
dc.description.abstractReconciling the twin goals of biodiversity conservation and restoration, and poverty reduction is difficult. A number of factors seem to influence effectiveness across intervention types including context, intervention design, governance and management quality, community engagement and participation, and intervention or programme length. This report largely focuses on outcomes from protected areas, payments for ecosystem services and community-based strategies. Protected areas can range from strictly protected to sustainable use PAs and from government-managed to community-managed areas (Woodhouse & Bedelian, 2018). There is mixed evidence about the biodiversity and poverty reduction outcomes of PAs, but a general sense that PES can lead to positive outcomes in both spheres. There is evidence that PAs have reduced deforestation, but biodiversity outcomes appear to vary by species. One robust study demonstrates that habitat corridors can increase conservation and decrease rates of extinction (Damschen et al., 2019). There is some evidence that PAs have produced negative outcomes for poverty reduction and human well-being, and some evidence that PAs have contributed to poverty alleviation. Positive outcomes across the two spheres from PES programmes include reducing deforestation, improving water quality, increasing food security and improving poverty status (Clements & Milner-Gullard, 2014; Bottazzi et al., 2018). There is some evidence that outcomes are context dependent and related to the length or age of the intervention. Positive poverty reduction outcomes in Nepal’s PAs are partly linked to the length of time the PA in question has been established. Wildlife repopulation, the benefits generated by ecosystem conservation, the development of new models of resource use and the adoption of a new legal framework all take time to establish, as do creating and strengthening human capacities for management and governance (AFD, 2016). Lee (2018) argues that the positive conservation outcomes in the Burunge WMA are linked to its age, its location close to two national parks, Tanzania’s large ecotourism industry, and capacity building for village game scouts and management of the WMA.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherIDSen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesK4D Helpdesk Report;773
dc.rights.urihttps://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/en
dc.subjectClimate Changeen
dc.subjectEnvironmenten
dc.subjectGovernanceen
dc.subjectPovertyen
dc.subjectRightsen
dc.subjectRural Developmenten
dc.titleBiodiversity Conservation and Restoration and Poverty Reductionen
dc.typeHelpdesken
dc.rights.holder© DFID - Crown copyright 2020en
dcterms.dateAccepted2020-03-18
rioxxterms.funderDepartment for International Development, UK Governmenten
rioxxterms.identifier.projectK4Den
rioxxterms.versionVoRen
rioxxterms.funder.project238a9fa4-fe4a-4380-996b-995f33607ba0en


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • K4D [569]
    K4D supports learning and the use of evidence to improve the impact of development policy and programmes. The programme is designed to assist DFID and other partners to be innovative and responsive to rapidly changing and complex development challenges.

Show simple item record