Legal frameworks for forest management in Asia : case studies of community/state relations

For more about the East-West Center, see http://www.eastwestcenter.org/Papers in this volume were prepared for a workshop sponsored by the EAst-West Center Program on Environment and the Ford Foundation from November 4-6, 1991, in Bali, Indonesia. Contents: The legal framework for joint management of forest lands in India / Mark Poffenberger, Chhatrapati Singh -- 2. Forest protection committees in West Bengal, India / S.B. Roy -- 3. Contractual agreements in the Java social forestry program / Frances J. Seymour, Danilyn Rutherford -- 4. A strategy for saving the Madhupur Sal Forest in Bangladesh -- 5. Development assistance and property rights in the Philippine Uplands / Donna Z. Gasgonia -- 6. Strengthening community stewardship agreements in the Philippines / Jefferson R. Plantilla -- 7. Legal issues in forest land management in Northeast Thailand / Viyouth Chamruspanth -- 8. Drafting a new community forest act in Thailand / Weera Attanatho -- 9. Community forestry legislation in Thailand: an NGO perspective / Yos Santasombat -- 10. The legal case for social forestry in the production forests of Indonesia / Sopari Wangsadidjaja, Agus Djoko Ismanto -- 11. Toward community-based forestry and recognition of Adat property rights in the outer islands of Indonesia / Sandra Moniaga -- 12. Differential access to resources and conflict resolution in a forest concession in Irian Jaya / Iwan Tjitradjaja -- The Parieri land dispute: a case study from Biak / Augustinus Rumansara, Decky Rumwaropen -- 14. Contractual agreements for community-based social forestry programs in Asia / Frances J. Seymour, Danilyn Rutherford

Mainstreaming biodiversity : conservation for the twenty-first century

CITATION: Redford, K. H. et al. 2015. Mainstreaming biodiversity : conservation for the twenty-first century. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 3:137, doi:10.3389/fevo.2015.00137.The original publication is available at http://journal.frontiersin.org/journal/ecology-and-evolutionInsufficient focused attention has been paid by the conservation community to conservation of biodiversity outside of protected areas. Biodiversity mainstreaming addresses this gap in global conservation practice by “embedding biodiversity considerations into policies, strategies and practices of key public and private actors that impact or rely on biodiversity, so that it is conserved, and sustainably used, both locally and globally” (Huntley and Redford, 2014). Biodiversity mainstreaming is designed to change those policies and practices that influence land uses outside of protected areas as well as to change economic and development decision-making by demonstrating the importance of conserving biodiversity for achieving development outcomes. The practice of mainstreaming is tied to implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity and is practiced with billions of dollars of investment by development agencies, national government agencies, and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and its implementing organizations as well as other donors. It is essential for the long-term survival of biodiversity inside and outside protected areas. However, it is virtually unheard of in the main conservation science field. This must change so as to bring careful documentation, analysis, monitoring, publishing, and improvement of practices—all things that conservation science should provide as partners to practitioners of biodiversity mainstreaming. The situation is ripe for informed coordination and consolidation and creation of a science-driven field of biodiversity mainstreaming.http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fevo.2015.00137/fullPublisher's versio

Progress towards the CBD protected area management effectiveness targets

The management effectiveness of protected areas is a critically important consideration for their conservation success. Over 40 different protected area management effectiveness (PAME) data collection tools have been developed to systematically assess protected area management effectiveness. Many of these assessments have recently been collated into the Global IUCN Protected Area Management Effectiveness (PAME) database. We use the PAME database together with and the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) to assess current progress towards the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) 2010 and 2015 targets for PAME, which call for at least 30 per cent and 60 per cent of the total area of protected areas to have been assessed in terms of management effectiveness, respectively. We show that globally 29 per cent of the area protected has been assessed and 23 per cent of countries have reached the 60 per cent target. In addition 46 per cent of countries have reached the 30 per cent target. However, analytical results show that there are biases in the type of protected area assessed; protected areas with larger areas, and protected areas designated as National Parks (IUCN category II) are much more likely to have conducted a PAME assessment. In addition there is a paucity of PAME assessments from Europe and North America, where assessments of protected area management may already be integrated into protected area planning and monitoring systems, creating a challenge for reporting to the CBD. We further discuss the potential and limitations of PAME assessments as tools for tracking and evaluating protected area management, and the need for further assessment tools to address the ‘equity’ elements of Target 11 of the CBD

Tracking Progress Toward the 2010 Biodiversity Target and Beyond

Biodiversity indicators used by policy-makers are underdeveloped and underinvested.</jats:p