REDD-plus and Biodiversity - Convention on Biological Diversity

More documents

Recommendations

Info

<strong>REDD</strong>-<strong>plus</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Biodiversity</strong> Part II: Seizing Opportunities FOR BIODIVERSITY <strong>and</strong> <strong>REDD</strong>-<strong>plus</strong> 4. Key opportunities 4.1 Opportunities for in situ conservation of forest biodiversity 4.1.1 <strong>REDD</strong>-<strong>plus</strong> as an incentive to improve protected area management <strong>and</strong> provide connectivity between protected areas 76. Creating linkages between key habitats (ecological connectivity) will allow species to migrate <strong>and</strong> will contribute to healthy gene pools. In particular, in light of adaptation to climate change, improving ecological connectivity is a cornerstone of conservation policy (SCBD, 2009; Ervin et al., 2010). This can, for example, be achieved by integrating protected areas into the wider l<strong>and</strong>- <strong>and</strong> seascape by reducing fragmentation of habitats, <strong>and</strong> by creating ecological corridors between habitats (see Figure 2). 77. According to UNFCCC COP decision 1/CP.16 the implementation of <strong>REDD</strong>-<strong>plus</strong> activities should be used to incentivize the protection <strong>and</strong> conservation of natural forests <strong>and</strong> their ecosystem services <strong>and</strong> promote <strong>and</strong> support transparent <strong>and</strong> effective national forest governance structures. FIGURE 2 Ecological connectivity <strong>and</strong> different forms of l<strong>and</strong>scape linkages Buffer zone L<strong>and</strong>scape corridor Core area Stepping stone corridor Protected area Production area Usually better than Linear corridor Sustainable-use areas Sources: ITTO/IUCN, 2009; Bennett, 2004 4.1.2 <strong>REDD</strong>-<strong>plus</strong> as an opportunity to maximize co-benefits through protected areas 78. Protected areas are commonly thought to be the most straightforward <strong>and</strong> effective tool for l<strong>and</strong> management to ensure biodiversity conservation. Systems of protected areas maintain key habitats, provide refuges, allow for species migration <strong>and</strong> movement, <strong>and</strong> ensure the maintenance of natural processes across the l<strong>and</strong>scape. Protected areas also safeguard ecosystem services, provide employment <strong>and</strong> income opportunities nationally <strong>and</strong> locally, <strong>and</strong> serve as symbols which unite <strong>and</strong> forge nations (Brockington & Igoe, 2006). 30
<strong>REDD</strong>-<strong>plus</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Biodiversity</strong> 79. However, protected areas were also severely criticized for the displacement of indigenous <strong>and</strong> local communities, which occurred both in the form of the forced removal of people from their homes <strong>and</strong> the exclusion of people from particular areas in their pursuit of a livelihood (Brockington & Igoe, 2006; Agrawal & Redford, 2009; van Oudenhoven et al., 2010). In reaction, delegates at the IUCN World Parks Congress in Durban in 2003 highlighted their commitment “to involve local communities, indigenous <strong>and</strong> mobile peoples in the creation, proclamation <strong>and</strong> management of protected areas.” One of the major goals of the Action Plan negotiated at Durban was to ensure the rights of indigenous <strong>and</strong> local communities are secured in relation to natural resources <strong>and</strong> biodiversity conservation. 80. Significantly, the Durban World Parks Congress also recognized the validity of applying a variety of protected area governance structures to all IUCN categories of protected areas. The most distinctive of these has been decentralized natural resource governance, including community conserved areas (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2004). At their most extensive, these decentralized approaches to conservation have allowed indigenous <strong>and</strong> local communities to redefine ownership, use <strong>and</strong> management of natural resources. The outcomes of these efforts vary, but when effective they have increased the rights <strong>and</strong> benefits of indigenous <strong>and</strong> local communities in terms of natural resources (Agrawal & Ostrom, 2008) <strong>and</strong> provided opportunities for biodiversity conservation at reduced cost (Chazdon, 2008; Somanathan et al., 2009). 81. The CBD COP recognizes the importance of community conserved areas <strong>and</strong> their role in the diversity of governance types for protected areas. At its ninth meeting, in Bonn, Germany, in 2008, the Conference of the Parties to CBD invited Parties to “improve <strong>and</strong>, where necessary, diversify <strong>and</strong> strengthen protected-area governance types, leading to or in accordance with appropriate national legislation including recognizing <strong>and</strong> taking into account, where appropriate, indigenous, local <strong>and</strong> other communitybased organizations” (para. 6 (a), decision IX/18). 82. In the same decision, Parties are invited to “recognize the contribution of, where appropriate, comanaged protected areas, private protected areas <strong>and</strong> indigenous <strong>and</strong> local community conserved areas within the national protected area system through acknowledgement in national legislation or other effective means” (para. 6 (b)). 83. Moreover, at its tenth meeting, held in Nagoya, Japan, in 2010, the Conference of the Parties adopted decision X/31 on protected areas wherein the COP invited Parties to (i) “establish clear mechanisms <strong>and</strong> processes for equitable cost <strong>and</strong> benefit-sharing <strong>and</strong> for full <strong>and</strong> effective participation of indigenous <strong>and</strong> local communities;” (ii) “recognize the role of indigenous <strong>and</strong> local community conserved areas <strong>and</strong> conserved areas of other stakeholders in biodiversity conservation, collaborative management <strong>and</strong> diversification of governance types possibly through national legislation;” <strong>and</strong> (iii) “diversify <strong>and</strong> strengthen protected-area governance types.” 4.1.3 <strong>REDD</strong>-<strong>plus</strong> as an opportunity to achieve synergies between mitigation <strong>and</strong> adaptation 84. <strong>REDD</strong>-<strong>plus</strong> is first <strong>and</strong> foremost a climate change mitigation effort. However, deforestation <strong>and</strong> forest degradation are accompanied by the loss of numerous vital ecosystem services which provide a variety of income possibilities, material welfare, livelihoods, security, resilience, social relations, health, <strong>and</strong> freedom of choices <strong>and</strong> actions (MEA, 2005). These ecosystem services, <strong>and</strong> their continuous supply, are becoming increasingly important in the context of adaptation to climate change. 85. The new GEF sustainable forest management strategy for 2010-2014 (GEF-5) is based on the underst<strong>and</strong>ing that financial support to forest projects has to achieve multiple globally agreed environmental objectives, such as climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, <strong>and</strong> biodiversity conservation. 31
Page 1: 59 Secretariat of CBD Technical Ser
Page 4 and 5: Secretariat of the Conventi
Page 7 and 8: REDD-plus<
Page 29: REDD-plus<
Page 68: Produced with financial assistance

REDD-plus and Biodiversity - Convention on Biological Diversity

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?