Does environmental certification in coffee promote "business as usual"? A case study from the Western Ghats, India.

Conservation initiatives are designed to address threats to forests and biodiversity, often through partnerships with natural-resource users who are incentivized to change their land-use and livelihood practices to avoid further biodiversity loss. In particular, direct incentives programmes that provide monetary benefits are commended for being effective in achieving conservation across short timescales. In biodiversity-rich areas, outside protected areas, such as coffee agroforestry systems, direct incentives, such as certification schemes, are used to motivate coffee producers to maintain native tree species, natural vegetation, restrict wildlife hunting, and conserve soil and water, in addition to encouraging welfare of workers. However, despite these claims, there is a lack of strong evidence of the on-ground impact of such schemes. To assess the conservation importance of certification, we describe a case study in the Western Ghats biodiversity hotspot of India, in which coffee growers are provided price incentives to adopt Rainforest Alliance certification standards. We analyse the conservation and social outcomes of this programme by studying peoples' experiences of participating in certification. Despite high compliance and effective implementation, we find a strong case for the endorsement of 'business as usual' with no changes in farm management as a result of certification. We find that such 'business as usual' participation in certification creates grounds for diminishing credibility and local support for conservation efforts. Working towards locally relevant conservation interventions, rather than implementing global blueprints, may lead to more meaningful biodiversity conservation and increased community support for conservation initiatives in coffee landscapes.The authors acknowledge the support of Dr C.G. Kushalappa and faculty of Forestry College, Ponnampet (University of Agricultural Sciences), India. This study would not have been possible without the collaboration of the many farmers and the financial support of the William Vaughan Lewis, Philip Lake, SMUTS and Lundgren Research Awards from the University of Cambridge and The Rufford Small Grants for Nature Conservation.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0796-

Improving Decisions with Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Information: A Theory-based Practical Context Diagnostic for Conservation

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment – the most comprehensive assessment to date of the status and trends of Earth’s ecological systems – warned us that 60% of the benefits nature provides to people (‘ecosystem services’) are being degraded or used unsustainably. This triggered widespread efforts, by research groups, conservation organizations and think tanks, to design and use ecosystem services assessments and tools around the world. These efforts aim to integrate the ‘value of nature’ in decision-making, policies, business operations and ultimately to change society’s development trajectory to be sustainable.Yet, recent studies point out that not all new tools and scientific knowledge on ecosystem services are effectively used as a basis for decision and action leading to positive social and environmental outcomes. To create change, new scientific and expert knowledge, even when worrying, robust and empirically grounded, is not enough. It needs to be mobilized by leaders and change agents – researchers, conservation NGO practitioners, motivated policy makers or business – who use the information systems and knowledge as part of a strategy of communication, advocacy and action.Context matters. A good understanding of the context for biodiversity and ecosystem services approaches often determines whether a project has impact or not. Such understanding can be gathered quickly and easily using ‘context diagnostic1’ tools. These can be used by practitioners who are agents of change in real world situations.This report introduces such a context diagnostic tool for conservation and Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Assessment and Valuation (BESAV) practitioners. The tool includes five approaches based on well-established social science theories. Each approach gives a contrasting perspective and raises a set of thought-provoking questions on social, organizational, institutional and political aspects of context. The tool is illustrated throughout by examples inspired by real- world case studies, gathered through interviews and participatory workshops. The tool can be used at different stages of BESAV projects (scoping, implementation, evaluation and debriefing).We have grounded this context diagnostic method on well-established social science theory to build on their rich insights and empirical studies. The five theories were chosen for their relevance to the management of ecosystems:• institutionalizing treatment of new environmental issues• strategic analysis and strategy development• knowledge and innovation as a lever of change• the mobilization and articulation of multiple values•the well-being of local communities who use the natural environment and the role of institutions and rules in enabling them to do soThese theoretical frameworks can enrich the way practitioners reflect on and understand the dynamics of change that they are part of

Creating successful valuing nature initiatives: A guide to analysing local context and developing strong theories of change

The guide aims to help practitioners understand local context and external pressures – the formal and informal institutional, political, legal, economic and social setting of conservation – to guide action for better ecosystem management

Poorer without It? The Neglected Role of the Natural Environment in Poverty and Wellbeing

The relationship between sustainable development’s prime goal, human wellbeing, and the natural environment has been narrowly conceived. This paper focuses on the possibility and the implications of treating the natural environment as a ‘constituent’, or internal element, of the concepts of wellbeing and poverty, as opposed to a ‘determinant’, or instrumental, external factor. Our review of philosophical accounts and conceptual frameworks of wellbeing and poverty suggests that treating the environment as a constituent element is philosophically sound, conceptually robust and empirically grounded. We argue that failing to consider these missing environmental aspects can result in an incomplete capturing of the multiple dimensions of wellbeing and poverty, and their underlying drivers. This broader framing of the environment– wellbeing relationship has the potential to inform a new generation of individual level wellbeing and poverty indicators, creating measures of multidimensional poverty that reflect the broadened scope ambitiously articulated in the Sustainable Development Goals

The Evolving Governance of REDD+

Peer reviewe

Local experts as the champions of water security in the Nepalese town of Dhulikhel

This commentary paper examines our local expert engagement methodology that we developed to understand water supply issues as well as to inform the direction of our action research conducted in Dhulikhel, a small town in Nepal. Through three years of field-based research at Dhulikhel, our inquiry uncovered a range of data ‘gaps’ and emergent as well as long-term conflicts around increasingly scarce water resources. To respond to this gap and contribute to inclusive water management, we developed and used a local expert engagement method, through which we were able to pool and mobilise a rich repertoire of hybrid knowledge from a range of local experts in Dhulikhel and others from nearby towns. The method of expert engagement was simultaneously linked to deliberations among local water stakeholders concerned with water supply management. Based on the lessons from this work, we argue that rich local expertise exists in water management and policy in Nepal, one that transcends the dichotomy between indigenous and scientific knowledge. We also show that as formal scientific knowledge becomes hybridised in different ways, this creates an important and actionable opportunity for advancing local science-policy processes to support water security agendas across the country

Avoiding impacts on biodiversity through strengthening the first stage of the mitigation hierarchy

The mitigation hierarchy is a decision-making framework designed to address impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services through first seeking to avoid impacts wherever possible, then minimizing or restoring impacts, and finally by offsetting any unavoidable impacts. Avoiding impacts is seen by many as the most certain and effective way of managing harm to biodiversity, and its position as the first stage of the mitigation hierarchy indicates that it should be prioritized ahead of other stages. However, despite an abundance of legislative and voluntary requirements, there is often a failure to avoid impacts. We discuss reasons for this failure and outline some possible solutions. We highlight the key roles that can be played by conservation organizations in cultivating political will, holding decision makers accountable to the law, improving the processes of impact assessment and avoidance, building capacity, and providing technical knowledge. A renewed focus on impact avoidance as the foundation of the mitigation hierarchy could help to limit the impacts on biodiversity of large-scale developments in energy, infrastructure, agriculture and other sectors

TESSA: A toolkit for rapid assessment of ecosystem services at sites of biodiversity conservation importance

Sites that are important for biodiversity conservation can also provide significant benefits (i.e. ecosystem services) to people. Decision-makers need to know how change to a site, whether development or restoration, would affect the delivery of services and the distribution of any benefits among stakeholders. However, there are relatively few empirical studies that present this information. One reason is the lack of appropriate methods and tools for ecosystem service assessment that do not require substantial resources or specialist technical knowledge, or rely heavily upon existing data. Here we address this gap by describing the Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessment (TESSA). It guides local non-specialists through a selection of relatively accessible methods for identifying which ecosystem services may be important at a site, and for evaluating the magnitude of benefits that people obtain from them currently, compared with those expected under alternative land-uses. The toolkit recommends use of existing data where appropriate and places emphasis on enabling users to collect new field data at relatively low cost and effort. By using TESSA, the users could also gain valuable information about the alternative land-uses; and data collected in the field could be incorporated into regular monitoring programmes

Natural capital informing decisions: from promise to practice

This is the accepted manuscript of a paper that will be published in PNAS. It is currently under an infinite embargo.The central challenge of the 21st century is to develop economic, social, and governance systems capable of ending poverty and achieving sustainable levels of population and consumption while securing the life-support systems underpinning current and future human well-being. Essential to meeting this challenge is the incorporation of natural capital and the ecosystem services it provides into decision-making. Here, we explore progress and crucial gaps at this frontier, reflecting upon the 10 years since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. We focus on three key dimensions of progress and ongoing challenges: raising awareness of the interdependence of ecosystems and human well-being; advancing the fundamental, interdisciplinary science of ecosystem services; and implementing this science in decisions to restore natural capital and use it sustainably. Awareness of human dependence on nature is at an all-time high, the science of ecosystem services is rapidly advancing, and talk of natural capital is now common from governments to corporate boardrooms. However, successful implementation is still in early stages. We explore why ecosystem service information has yet to fundamentally change decision-making and suggest a path forward that emphasizes: 1) developing solid evidence linking decisions to impacts on natural capital and ecosystem services, and then to human well-being, 2) working closely with leaders in government, business, and civil society to develop the knowledge, tools, and practices necessary to integrate natural capital and ecosystem services into everyday decision-making; and 3) reforming institutions to change policy and practices to better align private short-term goals with societal long-term goals.http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.150375111