Search

Climate change and biodiversity loss trigger policies targeting and impacting local communities worldwide. However, research and policy implementation often fail to sufficiently consider and involve them. Therefore, we present the results of a collective self-assessment exercise for eight case studies of communications regarding climate change or biodiversity loss between project teams and local communities. We develop eight indicators of good stakeholder communication, reflecting the scope of Verran (2002)'s concept of postcolonial moments as a communicative utopia. We demonstrate that applying our indicators enhances communication, although we discover a divergence between timing, complexity, and (introspective) effort. Three cases qualify for postcolonial moments , but scrutinising power relations and genuine knowledge co-production remain rare. While we verify the potency of various instruments for deconstructing science, their sophistication cannot substitute trust-building and epistemic/transdisciplinary awareness. Lastly, we consider that reforming inadequate funding policies helps improving the work in and with local communities.

Ecosystem services are a telling concept to discuss the integrated management of natural resources, such as integrated water and soil, with non-academic stakeholders. Stakeholders have different perceptions regarding the management of various ecosystem services, which is challenging when aiming to develop and foster sustainable ecosystem management. We performed a stakeholder analysis as part of a social-ecological study in preparation of a decision support system for integrated water management within the Lake Manyara sub-basin (LMSB), Tanzania. The area includes a National Park and UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. A group discussion listed 26 stakeholders, categorized according to the sector, influence, and interest. The stakeholders were grouped into six functional categories: local Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), other civil society groups, Belgian and international NGOs, authorities, academics associated to international donors and the private sector. We empirically identified advantages, shortcomings and associated risks when performing a stakeholder analysis with an interest-influence matrix. Confounding factors may include, e.g., the omission of important stakeholders, a different understanding of 'influence' and 'interest', or the omission of fragile groups. Instead of 'low' or 'high' interest and influence, we propose the terms 'supportive', 'potentially supportive', 'unsupportive', 'not interested', 'low or no influence' and 'antagonistic'. Further, we consider stakeholders who directly extract resources from the social-ecological system (SES) as a separate category, because of their direct dependence and impact on the SES. This improved stakeholder analysis framework for developing decision support systems in water basins can contribute to better analysis, understanding and management of aquatic social-ecological systems in general. We wish to address a special thanks to all stakeholders present at the two workshops in 2015 and 2016. This work has been co-financed by a North South South Project of VLIR-UOS (financed by the Belgian Development Cooperation, DGD), and by the EVAMAB project (Belgian Science Policy BELSPO). Esther Roux (CEBioS) is acknowledged for bibliographical editing. MPMV is supported by the Special Research Fund of Hasselt University (BOF20TT06). de Bisthoven, LJ (corresponding author), Royal Belgian Inst Nat Sci CEBioS, Brussels, Belgium. ljanssens@naturalsciences.be

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., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

License information: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. This research was partially funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research BMBF (FoReSee, grant no. 01LA1811B, Economics of the Climate Change II programme; COMTESS, grant no. 01LL0911A-G, Sustainable Land Management programme; Carbiocial, grant no. 01LL0902F, Sustainable Land Management programme, ECAS-BALTIC, grant no. 03F0860G, Küno Küstenforschung Nordsee / Ostsee), the European Commission (DESIRE, project number 561638-EPP-1-2015-1-JO-EPP KA2-CBHE-JP, grant agreement number: 2012-3324/001-001), the Flemish Interuniversity Council – University Development Cooperation VLIR-UOS (North South South Cooperation Programme ZIUS2015VOA3106), the Belgian Directorate-General for Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid (CEBioS programme), the Special Research Fund of Hasselt University (BOF20TT06), the Belgian Science Policy BELSPO (EVAMAB of CEBioS programme), the Luc Hoffmann Institute, and the German Research Foundation DFG (Germany's Excellence Strategy – EXC 2037 'CLICCS - Climate, Climatic Change, and Society', project no 390683824).

Climate change and biodiversity loss trigger policies worldwide, many of which target or impact local communities. Although research, international development, and policy implementation (and, thus, success in fighting both threats) require thoughtful consideration and communication of the underlying concepts, field work encounters a cascade of tangible barriers. Technoscientific representations of quantifiable causes and effects often remain alien to local perspectives, and failure to involve communities constantly and genuinely creates gaps that may ultimately prevent research and policy success. Therefore, in this article, we present the results of a collective self-assessment exercise for a panel of eight case studies (covering four continents) of communications between project teams and local communities within the context of climate change or biodiversity loss. Our analysis develops eight indicators of good stakeholder communication, which we construct from the literature, in addition to Verran (2002) 's concept of postcolonial moments as a communicative utopia. Our study contributes to the (analytical) understanding of such communications, while also providing tangible insights for field work and policy recommendations. We demonstrate that applying our indicators can foster a more successful communication, although we find an apparent divergence between timing, complexity, and (introspective) effort of the project teams. While three case studies qualify for postcolonial moments, our findings show that especially the scrutiny of power relations and genuine knowledge co-production are still rare. We verify the potency of various instruments for deconstructing science; however, we also show that their sophistication cannot substitute other crucial factors. Instead, simple deconstruction efforts may suffice, while trust-building, proper time management, and an advanced awareness of the scientists are crucial. Lastly, we consider that reforming rigid and inadequate funding policies will help overcome significant barriers and improve the work in and with local communities.

Ecosystem services are a telling concept to discuss the integrated management of natural resources, such as integrated water and soil, with non-academic stakeholders. Stakeholders have different perceptions regarding the management of various ecosystem services, which is challenging when aiming to develop and foster sustainable ecosystem management. We performed a stakeholder analysis as part of a social-ecological study in preparation of a decision support system for integrated water management within the Lake Manyara sub-basin (LMSB), Tanzania. The area includes a National Park and UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. A group discussion listed 26 stakeholders, categorized according to the sector, influence, and interest. The stakeholders were grouped into six functional categories: local Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), other civil society groups, Belgian and international NGOs, authorities, academics associated to international donors and the private sector. We empirically identified advantages, shortcomings and associated risks when performing a stakeholder analysis with an interest-influence matrix. Confounding factors may include, e.g., the omission of important stakeholders, a different understanding of 'influence' and 'interest', or the omission of fragile groups. Instead of 'low' or 'high' interest and influence, we propose the terms 'supportive', 'potentially supportive', 'unsupportive', 'not interested', 'low or no influence' and 'antagonistic'. Further, we consider stakeholders who directly extract resources from the social-ecological system (SES) as a separate category, because of their direct dependence and impact on the SES. This improved stakeholder analysis framework for developing decision support systems in water basins can contribute to better analysis, understanding and management of aquatic social-ecological systems in general.

While the concept of ecosystem services which links biodiversity to human wellbeing, is by now well-known, its translation into actual management decisions is still uneven. African Biosphere Reserves, which are to be living labs for sustainable development, embody the idea of synergies between people and nature. Gaining knowledge about the provision, the use and the trends of ecosystem services in these reserves is essential to ensure their global change-proof management. The diversity of rapidly evolving ecosystem services assessment tools requires a systematic and informed selection, in order to ensure that prospective tool users select the most adequate tool, aligned to their needs and context. Based on a Delphi survey of future tool users, and on a review of ecosystem services assessment tools, we propose guidance to users to select the most suited tool based on the context of African Biosphere Reserves, and on tool requirements regarding data input, necessary skills, outputs and types of ecosystem services addressed. The use of the Delphi survey and the focus on African Biosphere Reserves are new elements that contribute to the theory and practice of ecosystem services assessment.

Biodiversity is under threat from anthropogenic pressures, in particular in biodiversity-rich developing countries. Development cooperation actors, who traditionally focus on the improvement of socio-economic conditions in the South, are increasingly acknowledging the linkages between poverty and biodiversity, e.g. by referring to the ecosystem services framework. However, there are many different framings which stress the need for biodiversity integration and which influence how biodiversity and development are and/or should be linked. Moreover, there is a gap between the lip service paid to biodiversity integration and the reality of development cooperation interventions. This study analyses how biodiversity framings are reflected in environmental impact assessment (EIA) practice, and how these framings influence EIA and decision-making. The findings, based on an in-depth qualitative analysis of World Bank EIAs undertaken in West Africa, indicate the incoherent quality but also the dominance of the ‘utilitarian’ and ‘corrective’ framings, which respectively stress human use of nature and mitigation of negative unintended development impacts. Identifying and highlighting these discursive trends leads to increased awareness of the importance of biodiversity among all development actors in North and South. However, some framings may lead to an overly narrow human-centred approach which downplays the intrinsic value of biodiversity. This study proposes recommendations for an improved integration of biodiversity in development cooperation, including the need for more systematic baseline studies in EIAs. The authors wish to acknowledge the support granted through the CEBioS and KLIMOS-Acropolis programmes supported by the Belgian Development Cooperation (DGD). Jean Huge is supported by the Belgian National Fund for Research FRS-FNRS. The authors wish to thank the reviewers for their key contribution to the improvement of this manuscript.

In view of better linking conservation and sustainable development, it is imperative to optimize the transfer of biodiversity-related knowledge and technology from resource-rich countries to developing countries. All countries signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity are expected to report on their progress towards achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. However, weak data coverage and the technicality or even unavailability of indicators present major barriers to the monitoring of biodiversity as well as the development of adequate biodiversity policies and management plans in many countries of the global South, hence increasing the North-South knowledge and capacity gap. Capacity development in these countries may hence substantially enrich global biodiversity monitoring and policy. In this effort, ensuring that monitoring programs are realistic and sufficiently embedded in policy remains a challenge. To contribute to the mainstreaming of biodiversity into development cooperation, we developed a capacity development concept that links scientific data to policy development. To guarantee shared ownership, academic institutes and organisations or authorities with responsibilities in biodiversity policy were invited to jointly submit competitive "Monitoring, Reporting and Verification" (MRV) project applications. It appeared that especially ground truthing, economic valuation of biodiversity, and the application of modern technologies in biodiversity monitoring were missing capacities in the global South. Efforts are also required to increase the understanding and use of indicators to avoid them remaining a theoretical concept. As is observed with MRV in the carbon context, increased involvement of local communities is recommended in the global MRV framework, including techniques such as community-based Mapping, Measuring and Monitoring. Sincere gratitude goes to G.S. Akouehou, T.J.D. Akpona, A. De Kesel, S. Dessein, C.A.M.S. Djagoun, B. Habonimana, A. Heughebaert, T. Huyse, S. Ivory, S.I. Legba, P. Lejeune, F. Malaisse, B. Mayundo Kwezi, B. Nzigidahera, M.S. Taleb, B. Toirambe Bamoninga and N. Witters for their participation and contributions to the 2015 MRV workshop and to M. Agarad, H. de Koeijer, H. Keunen, Y. Loufa, F. Muhashy Habiyaremye, M. -L. Susini, S. Van den Bossche, V. Pinton, E. Verheyen and K. Vrancken for their input in developing and executing the MRV program. This work was supported by the Belgian Directorate-General for Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid [CEBioS program].

There is an increasing need for monitoring schemes that help understand the evolution of the global biodiversity crisis and propose solutions for the future. Indicators, including temporal baselines, are crucial to measure the change in biodiversity over time, to evaluate progress towards its conservation and sustainable use and to set conservation priorities. They help design and monitor national and regional policies on biodiversity; they also feed into national reporting on international agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Sustainable Development Goals. We analyse the methodological approach of five small African projects resulting from a call to promote indicator development, improve monitoring capacity and strengthen the science-policy interface in the field of biodiversity. We compared their approach to existing guidance provided by the international community, specifically the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership. To this end, we assess whether internationally recommended steps are effectively applied to national/local biodiversity monitoring in selected developing countries. We also present lessons learnt from workshop interactions between partners involved in these projects. Through our pilot projects we identified data availability and data accessibility, together with the involvement of stakeholders, as critical steps in indicator development. Moreover, there is a need for a better awareness and a wider application of the indicator concept itself. Hence, training of key actors both in the policy and science spheres is needed to operationalize indicators and ensure their continuity and sustainability. We hope that these case studies and lessons learnt can stimulate and support countries in the Global South to formulate policy-relevant biodiversity indicators. Sincere gratitude goes to A De Kesel, S Dessein, A Heughebaert, T Huyse, P Lejeune, F Malaisse and N Witters for their participation and contributions to the 2015 MRV opening workshop and to M Agarad, H de Koeijer, H Keunen, Y Loufa, F Muhashy Habiyaremye, M-L Susini Ondafe, S Van den Bossche, V Pinton, E Verheyen and K Vrancken for their input in developing and executing the MRV program. This work was supported by the Belgian Directorate-General for Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid (CEBioS program). Two anonymous referees are also gratefully acknowledged for their input.

[de Bisthoven, Luc Janssens; Rochette, Anne-Julie; Verheyen, Erik; Huge, Jean] Royal Belgian Inst Nat Sci, Brussels, Belgium. [Akpona, Tewogbade Jean-Didier] Univ Abomey Calavi, Cotonou, Benin. [Verbist, Bruno; Vanderhaegen, Koen] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. [Naturinda, Zerubabeeli] Busitema Univ, Busitema, Uganda. [Van Passel, Steven] Univ Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium. [Berihun, Daregot] Bahir Dar Univ, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. [Munishi, Linus] Nelson Mandela African Inst Sci & Technol, Arusha, Tanzania. [Huge, Jean] Univ Libre Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. [Huge, Jean] Hasselt Univ, Hasselt, Belgium.