What are the criteria for assessing the effectiveness of integrated conservation and development practices?

The paradigm shift in conservation and the commitment of international organizations to the goals of sustainable development gave birth to integrated conservation and development practices (ICDP). Naughton-treves et al. (2005) in the Annual Review of Environment and Resources concludes that ICDPs have had limited success in improvement of social welfare and biodiversity conservation. There is confusion in operationalising the multiple objectives, ambiguous mandates, and assessing the effectiveness of parks and reserves.

Contribution of conservation areas to development goals and poverty reduction is a complex endeavor and there is no set of conservation strategies for different regions and sub-regions of the world considering the fundamental differences between their institutional and historical context (Naughton-Treves et al. 2005). Combination of conservation and development without any change in market has an inherent contradiction and seeking a win-win situation might be elusive. Either conservation and development objectives should be separated (Berkes 2004) or there should be trade-offs between the two (Garnett et al. 2007) and the compromise would be development projects that minimize environmental degradation and conservation projects that minimize economic loss (Borgerhoff Mulder and Coppolillo 2005). Holland (2005) suggests that the challenge for ICDPs is shifted from “Parks vs people” to “park insiders vs outsiders” (Naughton-Treves et al. 2005).

Foot Note: Frank and Blomley (2004) describe ICDPs as “…approaches to the management and conservation of natural resources in areas of significant biodiversity value that aim to reconcile the biodiversity conservation and socio-economic development interests of multiple stakeholders at local, regional, national and international levels”.

How to keep a balance between environment and development, haves and have-nots, developed and developing nations?

I think that collective development at global level is the number one enemy of the environment. We should have to manage the pace of development in developed countries, it would have direct impact on the lives and policies of developing countries trying to emulate the develop nations and that would slow down the vicious circle of global development.

Why, considering the meaning of humans (A), also the integrity of the Earth system (B), the results and its use of ESR (C) and the lessons learned in development(D), we are not getting the appropriate global, continental and national sustainable well-being?

With humility, we recognize that we were not prepared for the above challenge; leadership was absent even with the availability of guidelines to set real role models. It means that we should be better prepared to deal with (A), (B), (C) and (D), to go the extra mile with new paradigms, models and actions, but this time all the conditions/drivers are in our favor (habitability of Earth is at stake).

The “tune up” required will need to see and foresee our reality with a unified conception, using the Earth language, an universal language understood by anyone that occupies an space on Earth. This “template” could be converted to a three dimensional figure (systems, realms and information)that could help navigate U.S.A.L. (understanding/scheme/action/love) and also could be the forerunner of a Strategic Framework for ESR and Development(SFESRD). It could also facilitate the involvement of multidisciplinary teams to detect the gaps and connect the dots when we superimpose the “template” on any ecosystem of Earth.

And last but not the least, we need to break the current inertia. The potential of ESSP to involve a significant part of our collective intelligence is there. The advances made(MA/MDG/IPCC, CGIAR/CRSP, NLEducation, etc)should lead to cover the remaining realms and systems but at the continent/region/country levels(part of SFESRD).Our education/research system should also be involved, at least the enthusiasm and success of our youth, as part of the K-1 to K-51 landscape(future stewards of planet Earth).

To get faster results(before 2015), we could announce that every member of the scientific community is donating one hour/week for the next 10 years, that could trigger involvement of our civil society and give meaning to the splendor of the human species.

How can human development and survival be assured if industrial and other processes that contribute to global warming, ozone depletion, forest degradation, etc., are terminated?

This question is vital if earth system science is suggesting ways of surviving the planet. Humankind is part of the planet, and their own survival must be properly integrated into the whole. For example, we must extract and burn fossil fuel if man must live and survive in temperate and polar regions, or if man must move from place to place – requiring some means of transportation. Therefore, as we look at anthropogenic effects on global ecosystem changes, we should not forget to check the effects of environmental stresses to mankind, and how these would influence human interaction with environmental systems. So, can we stop cutting down the forest, burning fossil fuel, extracting uranium and running nuclear reactors, reduce our numbers, say, through birth control, etc., and still survive?

Will some diseases become more frequent due to environmental changes, either climatic or developement-induced in a global urbanized world?

Some immunologically-mediated diseases seem to increase dramatically such as type 1 diabetes or allergies. Environmental changes associating sociological modifications and urbanization might play a role, as well as genetics and microbiology. The topic is indeed multifactorial.