Evaluating Land Management Options (ELMO): a participatory tool for assessing farmers’ sustainable land management decision preferences and trade-offs

This document provides guidance on applying the ELMO tool. It is primarily targeted at researchers seeking to collect information about the social and economic drivers of land use decisions, and wishing to investigate farmers’ sustainable land management preferences and trade-offs. As illustrated on the facing page, ELMO is organised around three basic questions, and entails 10 steps. Although these steps follow a logical, iterative process, it should be emphasised that the tool can be modified and adapted to the specific needs and context within which it is being applied. It is not always necessary to apply each and every step

Capturing ecosystem service opportunities: a practice-oriented framework for selecting economic instruments in order to enhance biodiversity and human livelihoods

Practitioners in the fields of sustainable development, land management, and biodiversity conservation are increasingly interested in using economic instruments that promise “win-win” solutions for conservation and human livelihoods. However, practitioners often lack guidance for selecting and implementing suitable economic approaches that take the specific local needs and the cultural, legal, and ecological context into account. This paper extracts from the academic debate a series of key aspects to be considered by practitioners who wish to accomplish change of behaviour via economic approaches. The paper then presents a practice-oriented framework for identifying the “ecosystem service opportunities” to conserve biodiversity and improve livelihoods in a specific local setting, and for preselecting suitable economic instruments. The framework is illustrated by describing its application in two pilot sites of the ECO-BEST project in Thailand, as part of which it was developed and road-tested

Sustainable financing for biodiversity conservation – a review of experiences in German development cooperation

The financial resources needed for globally implementing the Aichi Biodiversity Targets have been estimated at US$ 150-440 billion per year (CBD COP11, 2012) - of which only a fraction is currently available. Significant efforts have been undertaken in many countries to increase funding for biodiversity conservation. Nonetheless, this funding shortage remains immense, acute and chronic. However, we do not lose biodiversity and ecosystems primarily for lack of conservation funding but also due to poor governance, wrong policies, perverse incentives and other factors. This begs the question: How should limited conservation resources be used? For directly tackling biodiversity threats, for addressing the underlying drivers, or rather for strengthening the financial management and fundraising capacity of implementing organisations? As country contexts differ, so do the answers. This report synthesizes experiences of German development cooperation working towards improved biodiversity finance in eight countries: Viet Nam, Namibia, Tanzania, Cameroon, Madagascar, Mauritania, Ecuador and Peru

Survey to assess farmers’ economic perceptions, preferences and decision-making criteria relating to climate-smart soil protection & rehabilitation in Benin, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, India and Kenya

Key findings This document reports on a study to assess farmers’ economic perceptions, preferences and decision-making criteria relating climate-smart soil protection and rehabilitation (CSS) measures in Benin, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, India and Kenya. Specifically, it aims to answer the question: what do farmers perceive as the key costs, benefits, barriers and enabling conditions that influence their uptake (or rejection) of different land management practices? The study applies the Evaluating Land Management Options (ELMO) tool, a participatory method that has been developed by CIAT to investigate farmers’ own perceptions and explanations of the advantages, disadvantages and trade-offs associated with different land management choices as they relate to their needs, aspirations, opportunities and constraints. The study is able to highlight farmers’ preferences for different CSS measures in the five study sites, as well as to identify the main inputs, outcomes, barriers and enabling conditions that influence their uptake (or rejection) of different land management practices. While there remain key differences between (and within) the study sites, a number of common lessons emerge which relate to the assessment and design of CSS measures. One is the need to take account of farmers’ constraints and limitations as concerns their ability to access the cash, labour and technical knowhow that are required to implement new land management practices. Even when a land management technique may be perceived to be of great interest and high potential benefit, many farmers are simply not in a position to allocate the extra inputs that are required to implement it. The other is to recognise that most farmers do not merely strive to achieve one outcome or maximise a single stream of benefits when they make land management choices. Rather, it is the array of values, and the interactions between them, that matter and shape their preferences. The most desirable and viable land management alternatives are seen to be those which not only increase the flow of physical products (for example cash, food and other items), but also enhance livelihood diversity and security (such as filling critical food and cash gaps over the course of the year), at the same time as helping to secure longer-term improvements in the production base (most importantly soil fertility and moisture). The study findings serve to underline the fact that the most preferred land management are not necessarily those that yield the highest production gains, generate the greatest income, or entail the lowest costs (the characteristics that would traditionally be deemed important when land management interventions are designed). The metrics that are used to determine the desirability and viability of different land management options, measure their desired effects, and weigh up their advantages and disadvantages do not just concern cash costs and benefits or physical inputs and outputs, but encompass a wide array of monetary and non-monetary factors (such as the type and diversity of benefits generated and costs incurred, their timing, certainty, risk and relative ease of delivery). Unless these broader needs, constraints and preferences are identified, and addressed in the land management ‘solutions’ that are presented to farmers, CSS measures are unlikely to be acceptable, effective or sustainable in practice

Signposts on the road toward transformative governance: how a stronger focus on diverse values can enhance environmental policies

Transformative change toward sustainability is increasingly recognized as inevitable to avoid the collapse of socioecological systems. However, for a deep and system-wide transformation, governance approaches and policymaking need to be changed too. This paper discusses how a diverse value approach in environmental policymaking could be undertaken to foster transformative governance that can further lead to system-wide transitions. Based on the analysis of different policy options’ transformative potential, we argue that the more diverse values addressed by a policy instrument, the bigger its transformative potential. Weaving values into policy decision-making is possible at several junctures of the policy process, but context-specificities should always be considered, and capacities must be enhanced at all levels, both for public and private actors