Search

From 2022 onwards the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) of the Convention on Biological Diversity will guide biodiversity conservation actions worldwide, which includes mainstreaming biodiversity into a wide range of activities, sectors and policies. Biodiversity mainstreaming in development cooperation is particularly relevant given the direct dependence of many communities in the Global South on biodiversity and on the benefits it provides. We conducted a Delphi survey among development cooperation practitioners at the aid provider (donor) side, to gain insight into current and future (post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework) biodiversity mainstreaming and its monitoring. Our results demonstrate that despite efforts towards biodiversity mainstreaming and its monitoring, biodiversity mainstreaming indicators remain inconsistent and difficult to compare. The lack of biodiversity data, as well as their low accessibility and suboptimal use, and the inherent complexity of addressing biodiversity loss are considered key challenges. Respondents indicated that they strongly orient their own biodiversity mainstreaming and monitoring approaches towards international biodiversity governance dynamics. We conclude that, at least on paper, the indicator ambitions of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework are in line with the expectations and challenges of aid providers with respect to biodiversity mainstreaming. However, future effective mainstreaming of biodiversity requires indicator-based monitoring, exchange of good practices among aid partners, and a continued focus on awareness-raising regarding the linkages between biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction. • Monitoring the mainstreaming of biodiversity in development cooperation is key. • The upcoming Global Biodiversity Framework offers opportunities for improved and aligned monitoring. • We conducted a Delphi study among aid providers. • Respondents indicate that they expect guidance from international biodiversity frameworks. • Indicator-based monitoring of biodiversity mainstreaming will allow to track progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Reformulated highlights: Mainstreaming biodiversity in development cooperation is key in biodiversity hotspots such as the Democratic Republic of Congo. • We used expert interviews and analyzed Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) conducted in the DRC. • The diverse motivations underlying mainstreaming reveal that instrumental values do not thwart other biodiversity values. • Although governance challenges are huge, the intrinsic advantages of EIA as a biodiversity mainstreaming tool are recognized in the DRC. Mainstreaming biodiversity in development cooperation activities is called for by scientists and policy-makers alike, as the current biodiversity crisis can only be mitigated if the linkages between biodiversity and human wellbeing are acknowledged. Reconciling biodiversity conservation and human development is a particularly topical challenge in highly biodiverse developing countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where the population is highly dependent on natural resources for their livelihood. This study combines expert interviews with an evaluation of environmental impact assessment (EIA) reports, in order to determine the current motivations, obstacles and effectiveness of biodiversity mainstreaming in the DRC and to assess the framing, the representation and use of biodiversity in recently conducted EIAs in the DRC. Our findings indicate that biodiversity mainstreaming in the DRC is considered challenging due to enduring contextual (e.g. governance) factors; and that there is a strong support base for EIA among the interviewed experts. Turning to actual EIAs that were recently performed in the DRC, the diversity of framings motivating the uptake of biodiversity is remarkable. Instrumental reasons do not thwart intrinsic motivations –which is indicative of a support base for the non-instrumental value of biodiversity. The use of biodiversity baseline data in mitigation measures is low, and the taxonomic resolution of the biodiversity data in EIAs is uneven. Despite these challenges, the potential of EIA in the DRC is considered high, and linkages between project-driven EIA practice and biodiversity data collection and dissemination should be strengthened. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A common strategy to counteract global biodiversity loss is sustainable management of protected areas. However, as protection of nature sometimes conflicts with human livelihoods and involves stakeholders with different interests, conservation conflict is globally on the rise. These conflicts can hamper sustainable development, social equity and effective biodiversity conservation. Understanding perceptions of different stakeholders and mapping discourses is key in this respect. In this study, we investigated conservation conflict in the Pendjari National Park in Benin, West Africa. The conservation conflict was fueled in part by a shift from state-led collaborative management to a public-private partnership. Pendjari is the largest remaining savannah ecosystem in West Africa and home to several threatened megafauna species. Using Q methodology, we identified two distinct discourses among stakeholders. The first discourse, supported mainly by formally educated people with non-agricultural jobs, focuses on the limitation of anthropogenic activities in favor of biodiversity conservation. The second discourse is mostly supported by people with a lower education level and a direct dependency on the land. They agree there is a need for conservation but even more so for viable alternatives to ensure people's livelihoods. The identification of these discourses and their underlying drivers can be included into future decision-making processes and management of the Pendjari National Park. • We explore conservation conflict in a protected area after a management shift. • Q methodology maps stakeholder perceptions and groups them together into discourses. • Two found discourses disagree on the restriction of access to natural resources. • Education level is an important explanatory factor for the divide. • Q methodology can be used for conflict mitigation or analysis in conservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]