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 measure and evaluate progress in achieving the “overarching objective” of sustainable production and consumption?

At the 1992 Earth Summit, world leaders acknowledged that unsustainable production and consumption patterns are the major cause of environmental degradation. These patterns drive climate change, biodiversity loss, and other global crises. In 2002 the World Summit on Sustainable Development identified sustainable production and consumption as one of the “overarching objectives” of sustainable development. However, to achieve this objective — to develop appropriate policies, programs, and criteria for critical decisionmaking — we need scientific consensus on how to define, measure, and evaluate progress. If this “overarching objective” is to be taken serious by the international community as a global priority it needs to be grounded in meaningful, operational definitions and measures.

Is Passive Management Approach still practical for Managing Biodiversity in a Changing Climate within Least Developed Countries?

Most of the least developed countries are managing their biodiversity using passive management approaches; leaving nature to take its own course. With the climate variability, extremes and change species are suffering from extreme and persistent droughts, floods, wildfires etc. Seconded by the increasing population of people who also depend on climate-sensitive sectors (farming, fishing, pastoralism) the situation in worse. Following crop failures, massive death of livestock etc, people are relying directly on the biodiversity resources closer to their areas as well as from further away. The increasing population is also leaving most of the protected areas as isolated ecological islands. Given the harsh situations (floods, droughts, wildfires, etc) organisms are restricted to escape to various refuge areas. Therefore, more need to be done to inform the policy and possibly switch from passive to active management of biodiversity for sustainable development; biodiversity conservation and sustained ecosystem goods and services.

What model of collective action has proven to be the most effective in harmonizing social development with the functioning of natural systems?

Much is known already about anthropogenic change in natural systems and the consequences of such change for societies, both positive and negative. The scale of the role of human beings in the functioning of the Earth system is such that, barring cataclysmic events, it can be reasonably expected that the future evolution of the biosphere will depend on this particular species. It will require a conscious, collective effort by societies to modify certain behaviours to be up to this challenge.

On the other hand, much research has been made in economics, sociology and anthropology about individual and collective behaviour. But little research seems to have gone into understanding and identifying which models, systems, institutions, norms or other forms of organizing collective action result in a social development that recognizes human systems as part of a larger natural system, and how such development harmonizes these two.
This question should be addressed in conjunction with the question (already posted) What factors determine the resilience of the full set of interacting ecosystem services that support human well-being and allow for adaptation to a changing environment? As the Millennium Assessment showed, the main reason why societies change natural systems (of which they are part) is the search for food, fuel, fibers and other ecosystem services. These changes have reached a planetary scale, posing serious risks for all systems (natural and social) involved. Hence, the two most important questions that need to be answered as soon as possible are: (i) what are the limits of natural systems from the human point of view (the question about resilience stated above), and (ii) what can we do as a species to sustain our development (the question about collective action proposed here).
The main obstacles in answering this question are two: (1) it requires interdisciplinary research, and (2) it has strong political and ideological implications. This latter difficulty requires a careful design of the research process.

What is the best fit trajectory of development to balance economic growth, natural resource use and low carbon emission in the less developed and emerging economies of Africa, Asia, and Latin America?

To increase economic growth and reduce the number of the poor, the low income and emerging economies of Africa, Asia and Latin Ameria are going to strive more vigorously to achieve higher economic growth in the coming decade. This implies that they are going to explore every resources (importantly, natural resources)to do this. It is clear now, judging from current levels of knowledge on the state of the earth, these contries must not follow the development trajectory of todays’ developed nations, otherwise the planet earth (and all of us) will be in greater jeopardy in future. It is critically important now to ponder on what is the optimum developmenent trajectory that should be followed to balance sustainable use of natural resources, achieve low carbon economy, and record the levels of economic growth that can take majority of population out of poverty, in a win-win fashion. Specific country level (and local level)investigations using cross discipline methodologies may be required. It may also require radical spatial/land use re-organization which may be in conflict with existing social organization.

How can we develop empathy for a global environmental system?

In the past conflicts and wars were mainly about self-determination and food (18th and 19th Century) and space and resources (19th and 20th Century). Looking to the future and the 21th Century we will see more and more conflicts due to the overuse of environmental resources and systems. We are now living in the Anthropocene and human interference is reaching into nearly every natural system. This will lead to major changes in those systems with possible catastrophic consequences. The increasing world population will become more vulnerability to environmental threads.

Since the 1960s an environmental movement has established. Notable cornerstones are the book “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson and the foundation of the “Club of Rome”. Only a small percentage of the western world population is aware of their environmental impact yet. It will be a major task for the 21th Century to establish a global awareness and empathy for nature. This is not anymore a blurred hippie idea, but a necessary step to enable a global sustainable development. We will have to achieve that every person realizes the environmental consequences and systemic impact of its action.

The question is, in which way can Earth System Research contribute to this.
Education and outreach need to be enhanced. Research results need to be translated to the public in a comprehensive way.

Current trajectory of human action is not sustainable at a global scale: how can scientific understanding of complex systems and human perturbations devise sustainable development pathways across the scientific, policy and resource management divide, particularly at the regional level where most decisions are taken?

During the last 50 years the human population has risen from to 2,5 to over 6 billion. The use of land, water, minerals and other natural resources has increased almost ten-fold over the last two hundred years and approximately 50% of the ice-free land surface has now been significantly modified by humans and most of the rest is managed for human purposes. This phenomenon, which has obvious implications, creates the need to study the interactions, which occur on different temporal and spatial scales, affecting the biosphere and which are particularly susceptible to human actions, especially the efforts to provide a growing human population with food, energy, shelter and employment.

A global change research perspective which places primary emphasis on the global scale often misses a vast amount of work, frequently done under other guises, which is directly relevant to the study of global change phenomena. Such work is crucial for understanding the underlying processes which when aggregated constitute global change. Ultimately global change research will provide much of the underlying scientific understanding of complex systems and human perturbations that is required to devise sustainable development pathways at regional level. The drive for sustainability – the desire to make the development of the growing ‘human enterprise’ more compatible with the natural evolution of the Earth system – gives global change research its most fundamental rationale and connection to applications in policy and resource management. Where global change research is weak – application of the work through interaction with the policy and resource management sectors, sustainable development science is strong; and where sustainable development work is often weak – understanding the fundamental dynamics of complex environmental systems, global change research is strong. Clearly, the two fields of enquiry should work in much closer harmony in the future.

There are large disconnects between the world of scientific (including social-scientific) experts and the general public on subjects such as risk, vulnerability, and socio-ecological change. This presents challenges to generating the political change we need for embarking on more sustainable development pathways. In what ways does this disconnect affect the creation of appropriate policy, and how do we deal with it?

The public is growing increasingly distrustful of politicians and of what academic Tim Mitchell calls “the rule of experts.” For real, transformative changes, we need mass buy-in and political pressure. What is our responsibility, as academics, in terms of making our research accessible, relevant and usable by the public? How do we bridge this gap?

Model experiments, intercomparisons and data evaluation are needed to quantify and help with management decisions and, ultimately, to provide scientific knowledge to improve the sustainability of the living Earth. Which interactive physical, chemical and biological processes – including the role of human activities from global to regional and at short and long timescales – are fundamental to study in order to gain a deeper understanding of the Earth System and priority areas such as vulnerability, impacts and adaptation?

The International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (www.igbp.net) is embarking on a series of scientific syntheses to be completed by 2014. the initial synthesis topics, try to bring together some of the issues raised in the above question and include

• Global limits to growth
• Geoengineering
• The role of changing nutrient loads in coastal zones and the open ocean in an increased CO2 world
• Global nitrogen assessment and a future outlook
• Earth-system resilience: Earth-system prediction
• Earth-system impacts from changes in the cryosphere
• Megacities and coastal zones
• Global environmental change and sustainable development: the needs of least developed countries
• The role of land cover and land use in modulating climate
• Aerosols
• Additional themes forthcoming (e.g. freshwater cycle; global to regional predictions on shorter timescales)

The scientific effort, much along the lines of what the recent review of ICSU advised for IGBP, is open to the global change community and partner programmes and will
- be guided by scientific excellence;
- Identify knowledge gaps, focus future efforts, and set priorities at IGBP core project level and beyond;
- Complement and draw from IGBP’s core projects and other global change research;
- Frame the Earth as an integrated system strongly affected by humans;
- Integrate the multiple stressors on the Earth system, its limits and its resilience;
- Develop a suite of products for a range of audiences, primarily the research community to identify future priorities and policymaker to formulate policy;
- Provide policy-relevant information and solutions on mitigation, adaptation, key uncertainties, tipping elements, integrated effects and responses in critical regions;
- Engage with a wide range of stakeholders to assist us develop a consistent set of guidelines for the syntheses and identify key science- and policy‐relevant themes. Stakeholders include IGBP scientists and core projects, other policy‐oriented scientists, policymakers, national committees, international ICSU unions, key leaders involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and other large international activities.

What do Amazonian Dark Earths or terra preta have to do with the Global Climate and what lessons can they teach us about sustainable development and human/environment interaction?

We currently know little about Amazonian Dark Earths. They are ubiquitous prehistoric human-made soils that store significant amounts of carbon and are thus a global carbon sink. The soils are exceptionally fertile and resilient, standing out from the predominantly infertile Amazonian soils. Some scientists have already suggested that we could create terra preta and develop more productive and sustainable agriculture in the tropics. Most importantly, prehistoric native Amazonians practiced a more sustainable, environmentally-friendly form of food production that once supported dense populations and complex societies in the Amazon Rainforest.