147

Biodiversity, Sustainability and Education:
Are We Doing Enough to Connect the Dots?
M.S. SUNEETHA1* and P. BALAKRISHNA2
1

United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies,
1-1-1, Minato Mirai, Nishi-ku, Yokohama 220-8502, Japan
2
Biodiversity, Land Law and Governance Unit,
Division for Environmental Law and Conventions
United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya*
email: subramanian@ias.unu.edu

Abstract‘Biodiversity,’ by its utilitarian connotation, represents an iconic term for nature and its environmental
services. Biodiversity and ecosystems offer several critical goods and services to ensure the survival of all life,
and in particular the well-being of humankind. Currently, loss of biological resources has reached alarming
levels, primarily due to drivers within human control. It has served to create inequities in access to resources
and to benefits derived from them, in addition to fostering a propensity for wasteful consumption. Redressing
this situation requires strategic investments into education, awareness raising, human resource management
and capacity enhancement tools among different stakeholders across various vocations and locations. This
paper highlights the critical issues with regard to the maintenance and augmentation of biodiversity andecosystems that can be supported by strengthening education systems and related initiatives.
Key words: biodiversity, ecosystems, education for sustainable development, equity, sustainable use,sustainability

1. Introduction
In many ways, ‘biodiversity’ has come to be an iconic
term for nature and environment since it is a utilitarianconcept representing various issues related to theenvironment and human well-being. Although increasingly, in current literature ‘biodiversity’ is used concurrently with the term ‘ecosystem services’ (TEEB, 2010),
it is noteworthy that a re-categorization of biologicalresources within the term ‘biodiversity’ has enabled several stakeholders to better articulate their concerns andstandpoints. This is because the term ‘biodiversity’ helps
to convey the utility of biological resources and the value
in conserving them across stakeholder groups such as
local communities, businesses and policymakers.
‘Biodiversity’ refers to the variability among different
life forms (plants, animals, micro-organisms and the like)in different ecosystems, or to put it more simply, it is theabundance and variety of life. It provides resources for
our food (e.g., the varieties of our staples, including rice,maize, wheat, tubers, vegetables, fish and meat), fuel,fibre, shelter, medicine, aesthetics and culture (as intotems, sacred areas), and in the maintenance of important nutrient cycles and species interactions that enableeffective provisioning of the above services (Fig. 1).
Global Environmental Research
14/2010: 147-153
printed in Japan

Moreover it helps stabilize climate and modify the impact of weather events. The diversity within theseresources arises from their evolution or adaptation tovarious stresses in different ecosystems over the millennia. It is quite common to find several endemic species orvarieties unique to specific eco-regions.
The United Nations declared the year 2010 as theInternational Year of Biodiversity, putting the spotlightNu
cy trie
cli n
ng t

Fuel

Biodiversity

M
ed

ici
ne

Fig. 1 What biodiversity provides.
©2010 AIRIES148

M.S. SUNEETHA & P. BALAKRISHNA

on the need to have a renewed focus on the status of theworld’s biodiversity as well as the need to work together,using a multi-pronged approach, to conserve, use andshare biodiversity for the generations to come. It has long
been the argument of environmentalists and ecologiststhat sustainable use of natural resources and ecosystems
is the key to healthy economies (Costanza & Folke, 1997;
TEEB, 2009; 2010). A quick transect through what
biodiversity means, how it is used and what the debates
surrounding it are would illustrate this argument better.
The extent of human dependence on biological resources is obviously very high. These resources deplete
rapidly either due to exploitative harvesting or due toconversion of their habitats into other land use forms
including croplands, infrastructure and real estate development. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment showsthat most of the regions with the highest GDP have also
seen the highest transformation of natural areas (MA,2005). This corresponds to increased demand for food,
fuel, timber, fiber and basic necessities. Inadvertent land
use changes along with intensive use of nitrogen fertilizers has led to a consequent loss of diversity of life, threatening up to 30% of mammal, bird and amphibian species
with extinction (MA, 2005). Despite the setting of a
global target to significantly reduce the loss of biodiversity by the year 2010 among the 193 member countries of
the Convention on Biological Diversity, progress has
been found to be insufficient to halt or significantly
reduce the rate of loss (Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, 2010). Clearly, such changes
significantly affect our productive capacities, and affectdeeply the livelihood opportunities of communities
dependent on these ecosystems and resources, as well as
impacting on the sustainability of mainstream businesses(TEEB, 2010).
The value of biodiversity is beginning to be assessedand valued, although with limited clarity on how suchvaluation can contribute to economic development on the
one hand and social coherence on the other. This isbecause, even if we have reasonable levels of understanding of the services provided by the different componentsof biodiversity and ecosystems of utility to humans, itwould be quite impossible to fully grasp the complete
range of services a dynamic and constantly evolving
natural system provides to sustain all life and habitats andthen convert them to quantifiable and tangible benefits
for society. Despite this acknowledgement of the complex nature of the value of biodiversity, researchers
policy makers seek to capture the economic value of
biodiversity in order to convince different stakeholders of
the costs of inaction to conserve biodiversity. It is also
intended as a mechanism to enable better pricing of thesenatural resources and services, thereby promoting theirrational use. The problem of un-organised markets forbiodiversity (also referred to as missing and opaquemarkets) and ecosystem-based goods, the undervaluationof natural resources and the lack of appropriate national
accounting for natural assets such as biodiversity
contribute to the lack of understanding of the role andrelevance of biodiversity to countries and theireconomies (Olsen & Larsen (2003); TEEB, 2010).

2. Issues Related to Equity and Fair Practices
As mentioned earlier, deteriorating ecosystems andbiological resources pose a critical threat to the livelihoods and well-being of people dependent on them. Thisis a contested area in policy negotiations, where the rights
and obligations of traditional communities that havecustody over resources and their use do not match therights and exercise of power by commercial users ofthese resources across various economic sectors (such as
pharmaceuticals, botanicals, crop production, etc.) (formore details please see https://www.cbd.int/convention/
wgabs.shtml).
Traditionally, biological resources have been considered to be part of a common heritage and a source ofsubsistence livelihoods and they have had a low tradefrequency. The resources and knowledge associated with
their use (traditional or indigenous knowledge), even if
restricted to a few individuals (such as local healers)
within a community, were considered to be collectively
owned, sometimes sacred, and were rarely used forcommercial purposes. Over time, however, this haschanged. Nowadays, the frequency of trade of such resources is more active while the associated knowledge isstill accessed either as a common resource or as an exotic
curiosity (Subramanian & Pisupati, 2010). Questions on
the ethics of transactions between different stakeholders
and on the justice in the exchange of benefits (including
both the type and volume of these benefits for access toresources and knowledge have become more pronounced,
and are being played out in negotiations on an international regime on access to genetic resources and benefit
sharing within the Convention on Biological Diversity(Schroeder & Balakrishna, 2010).
Trade in biological resources has been chiefly led bytechnologically advanced countries that tapped into thepotential of improved technology and commerce by adding value to such products. An example is the growth inconvenience foods: their successful distribution overlarge geographic spaces and over long storage times
would not have been possible without technologicalinnovations in biotechnology, refrigeration or packaging,as well as innovations in trading, such as futures or forward trading. Technological developments have therefore contributed to expanding the use of biologicalresources, the spread of which has been facilitated by
evolving commercial trade practices. It is noteworthy
that in the process, a propensity to wasteful consumption
may also have been encouraged. As Lundquist et al.
(2008) highlight, wastage of perfectly usable food indeveloped countries is rising (estimates suggest 4 million
tons annually for the UK and about 25% of all food produced for human consumption), accounting for heavy
losses of precious natural resources including water andfuels.
In addition, incentives provided by the creation ofBiodiversity, Sustainability and Education: Are We Doing Enough to Connect the Dots?

intellectual property and trading regimes such as thoseenunciated by the World Trade Organization enable researchers and companies that develop these products togain exclusive rights over them. The standards set in theprocess require a high degree of uniformity of the commodities in order to comply with the requirements ofsuch systems, which leaves little leeway for diversity. Allof this is creating an inherently unfair situation among
countries and stakeholders in a market where thetechnologically superior are able to derive high economic
rents from their products, while the players who provide
the basic resources do not obtain a fair share of theseincomes, in addition to losing inherent and traditionalrights over their use. Hence, the ethic of justice inexchange – where the different actors involved in atransaction are equally satisfied with the terms of themutual transaction – and the ethic of distributive justice –where scarce resources are fairly divided among those
who qualify to access – have not been rightly honoured.
Further, the 20th century has witnessed increasing
violations of the ethic of use of wild or natural resources,
which is to ‘leave enough and as good for others,’
meaning a fair and sustainable use of natural resources(Schroeder & Balakrishna (2010)). A host of policy andlocal level initiatives (including decisions under theConvention on Biological Diversity, national biodiversity
strategy and action plans, other environmental laws
including decisions under the UNFCCC, declarations
related to human rights such as the UN Declaration of
Rights of Indigenous Peoples and national policy andregulatory responses) currently seek to redress these‘moral transgressions’ and ensure intergenerational
equity to resources along with equity in interactions
among different actors within a time scale.

3. Biodiversity and Sustainability
While the Brundtland Report defined sustainability as
meeting current needs without compromising the abilityof future generations to meet their own needs (WCED,1987) i.e., essentially focusing on intergenerational
equity, the concept has been examined over the years toinclude broad ecological principles viz. interdependence
between ecosystem components (including humans),maintenance of energy flows, partnerships between
living members, and diversity and resilience of complex
systems to maintain homeostasis through co-evolution
and adaptation mechanisms (IUCN, UNEP, WWF, 1991;
Capra & Pauli, 1995).
In the development of a product based on a biologicalresource, a resource moves through various steps in value
addition, involving various stakeholders over large geographic spaces, using different resources including land,
water and energy sources, and – depending on the consumption levels – the intensity of use and availability of
those attendant resources change, as do the dynamics oftransactions among the actors. The links between consumption and value addition processes (including
processing, packaging, storage and transport) to the pro-149

duction of a biological resource (be it a food grain, afishery product or a medicinal plant) is multi-dimensional with implications to ecosystem health and to livelihoods at each stage (Suneetha, 2010). Hence, for instance,increasing demand for ethically sourced and sustainably
harvested coffee beans ensures that the different stakeholders from the producer to the final retailer get a fairer
share of the income relative to their contribution and that
ecosystem functions are not compromised in the processof cultivation. Such systems may also spur more researchin sustainable cultivation and processing practices.
Well-functioning ecosystems enable sustainable production activities, supporting services and livelihoods. A
clear signal from the consumption end can set in motion
tools and mechanisms such as certification schemes (forsustainable production and ethical practices), that in turntranslate into good business, agricultural and environmental practices. A schematic representation of the supply chain of a biological resource and the links between
consumption and production processes is provided in
Figs. 2 and 3. Thus, the connections between the utilisation and maintenance of biological resources on the one
hand and ensuring a balance between social, economicand environmental priorities – the pillars of sustainable
development – on the other hand, are obvious.
While biological resources serve to enhance economic development through biodiversity and ecosystemservice-based businesses and activities, the urge toachieve higher rates of economic growth has createdsocial and environmental tensions. A good illustration isthe expansion of palm oil plantations in Malaysia andIndonesia. While there are definite and high income
benefits to the country and planters to be derived from theplantations, their encroachment into rich tropical forests,
impacting biodiversity, natural systems, local livelihoods,
cultures and access to traditional areas, has come in formuch criticism (Down to Earth Newsletter, 2005). The
trade-offs between environmental and growth concerns
are not entirely dichotomous. There is certainly a need tolink growth prospects to investments to augment wellfunctioning ecosystems (TEEB, 2010). Doing so requiresthat the interests of different stakeholders be taken into
account, comprising in their entirety both human andecological components. Given that accelerated degradation of ecological systems over the last two centuries has
been primarily led by anthropogenic factors, including
land use and land use changes, and industrialization withconsequent large-scale emissions of gases resulting in
global warming (IPCC, 2007), it is important to reflect on
the major human-led drivers that have resulted in thissituation. It is not far-fetched to claim that ultimately, itnarrows down to the need to modify consumption patterns impacting production systems (as seen in the case offood wastage in the example above; also see The World
Bank, 2010). Tackling this complex issue would involve
fostering people at different scales of production or consumption to accept responsibility for their actions andmaking decisions that require investment in awarenessraising and capacity development programs. As high-150

M.S. SUNEETHA & P. BALAKRISHNA

International Agreements

Intermediate
Products

Genetic
Resources(e.g., medicinal plant)
Major Stakeholders(e.g., extract of
medicinal plant)
Major Stakeholders

Final Products(e.g., medicine, tablet)

Major Stakeholders

Local communities

Consumers

Bigger traders

End user manufacturers

Local communities

Local traders

Processors/Industries
Marketing agents
Researchers

Local/national govt.

Custom officials

Advocacy groups

Fig. 2 Supply chain of a biological resource (Schematic representation).

4. Education, Biodiversity and Sustainable
Development

Fig. 3 Impacts of trade in biological resources at various
levels of a supply chain.

lighted in a World Bank report, several measures to adapt
to (or mitigate climate change) rest within the purview
and capacities of national and local governments, andindividuals. However, such measures often are poorly or
non-implemented due to “institutional or behavioural
inertia” (The World Bank, 2010). The following section
highlights the role of education towards this purpose.

The role of education in advancing sustainable
development and conservation cannot be overstated.
Education and other means for assessing information andanalysing experiences allow for informed decision making – which means understanding the causes of concerns
related to issues (say loss of biodiversity) and translating
this understanding to implementable decisions andactions. Such informed decision making, in turn, canform the basis for good governance in the realm of environmental management and development, and in fostering respectful partnerships among different actors. Given
the complex nature of socio-ecological systems in theirinteractions, only a long-term and sustained investment
in education oriented towards conservation and development can make a difference. It is one of the entry points
for fostering responsibility and reflection, as most people,
at different social levels, given the opportunity, aspire forgood educational avenues to improve their well-being(Suneetha & Balakrishna, 2009).
Realizing the importance of inculcating the values ofsustainability through a pedagogical process, the United
Nations launched the ambitious UN Decade of Educationfor Sustainable Development (DESD) in 2005. It involves education to “disseminate the values and principles that are the basis for sustainable development(intergenerational equity, gender parity, social tolerance,
poverty reduction, environmental protection and restoration, natural resource conservation, and just and peacefulsocieties), highlighting the complexities and interdependence of the environment, society, culture andeconomy, and, in the process enable people to anticipate,confront and solve the problems that threaten life on ourBiodiversity, Sustainability and Education: Are We Doing Enough to Connect the Dots?

planet” (UNESCO, 2006).
Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) aims
to help societies, through a systemic and integrated approach, to gain awareness and prioritize among different
issues related to the environment, biological resources,
vulnerabilities and risks, and economic development andto adopt proactive measures that lead to resilient andsustainable societies (UNESCO, 2010). The pedagogicaltools advocated for this purpose include all formal andinformal methods of education, across all sectors ofsociety through a life-long learning process, and involves
a variety of local, national, regional and international
stakeholders.
This is one of the most comprehensive approaches
designed to develop capacities of people in various age
groups to understand the various elements related tosustainable development, and identify processes toachieve them. However, while issues related to climatechange, sustainable agriculture, and equity in transactions among different stakeholders are well highlighted
in some of the training modules developed for the purpose (see for instance UNESCO, 2005), the emphasis on
biodiversity and ecosystems is not explicit. This is alacuna because, as highlighted earlier, all actions towards‘green development’ should alleviate damage to thehealth of ecosystems and the sustainable use of resources
therein. Hence, unless a conscious effort is made to include biodiversity and ecosystem services within suchsustainable development agendas, benefits that may arisein this context may only be incidental and marginal. The
focus on climate change and attendant ‘remedial
measures’ to mitigate and adapt, can indeed be considered a response to set right perturbations to ecosystems
that often incapacitate them from delivering their various
essential services (UNEP, 2009).

5. Education, Communication, Human
Resource Issues to Achieve Global Goals
and Targets
Policy goals to address various aspects related tohuman well-being and to the environment are perhaps
best captured by the targets and indicators within theeight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Progresson these goals over the last 20 years is indeed aneye-opener. Typically, the targets on education capture
enrollment and completion of primary education, andequal access to both genders, which at an aggregate levelare showing some progress, even if uneven. The MDG
report of 2010 (UNDESA, 2010) indicates that though
the hopes for achieving the global target of universal
primary education by 2015 are dim, even poor countries
seem to be making significant progress on primaryeducation. Statistics indicate that countries are still
struggling with disparities in education between rural andurban populations, as well as gender imbalance between
boys and girls at primary and secondary education levels(UNDESA, 2010). None of these, however, capture
progress in informal learning initiatives and non-formal

151

education. Even while recognizing that this would be animmensely challenging task, appropriate indicators to
track developments in non-mainstream sectors of education are important since, as previously cited, it is often thecase that environmental awareness and stewardship arebuilt mostly through such non-formal institutions oflearning (Blair, 2008).
A specific target related to the environmental goal of
the MDGs is to significantly reduce the rate of loss of
biodiversity. This is captured through a broad set ofindicators associated with establishing protected areas
and reducing the threat of extinction to species. The rateof progress on this goal as seen by those indicators is still
far from satisfactory, although there are increasing
investments to realise them (UNEP, 2010). It is tempting
to suggest that by including biodiversity– and ecosystem-related instruction at all levels of education andcapacity– or awareness-raising programmes, the possibilities of improving progress on this indicator may rise.
For this to happen, however, merely depending on formal
educational processes would be insufficient. Knowledge
related to biodiversity also extends to the experiential,
and it is therefore important to complement mainstream
learning tools with alternative or what are consideredtransformative pedagogies. This, then, is a clear signal
for the need to develop appropriate indicators that would
capture ‘alternative’ ways of learning and the success ofsuch pedagogies. (It is perhaps also a pointer to the inadequacies of existing ways of measuring advancement inareas critical to our well-being). For instance, ‘success’ oflearning methods could be limited to just raising awareness. However, they may also include instilling a strong
sense of moral responsibility for sustainable development or go even further to ensure that recipients actuallytake relevant action towards sustainability. Educational
planners, therefore, would need to define what is sought
to be achieved through a learning process, and how thismay be monitored. It is also important to ensure that thetarget of such educational initiatives is not limited to
students in formal schooling, from primary to tertiary
education. Because interactions among components ofsocial and ecological systems are dynamic, resulting in
the need for dynamic responses to adapt to and mitigatechanges, there is a need for fostering a continuous process of learning for all stakeholders from different vocations and perspectives.
Recognizing the importance of education in raisingawareness and fostering implementation of good practices, several multilateral environmental agreements(MEAs) have embarked on developing and implementing a series of actions under communication, educationand public awareness (CEPA) programmes. Significant
among them is the CEPA programme of the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD) that focuses onon-the-ground actions related to communication andeducation. This programme has been developing tool kits
and compiling best practice case studies that have effectively promoted biodiversity and related issues among awide stakeholder base. One of the priority areas is to152

M.S. SUNEETHA & P. BALAKRISHNA

promote biodiversity education in both formal andnon-formal education systems. This has been operationalised through the Global Initiative on Biodiversity
Education. Recently, the CEPA programme has beenworking closely with UNESCO to include this within the
DESD activities. Discussions within forums such as the
CBD are focused heavily on conservation and sustainable
use of biological resources and on equitable transactions
between different sets of stakeholders. There is limited
explicit emphasis on issues related to sustainable consumption and production processes or even lifestylechoices among major stakeholders. Often these issues are
expected to be discussed only in other forums, such as
UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development
Organization) or even the UNFCCC (United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change), despite
congruence of concerns. For instance, the new Strategic
Plan of the CBD calls upon nations to “widely share andapply knowledge, science base and technology relating tobiodiversity, its values, functioning, status and trends”(Target 19 of the New Strategic Plan of the CBD, CBD2010). Elsewhere, there is specific mention of the need toensure SCP processes (Target 4 of the New Strategic Planof the CBD, ibid).
Implicit in the targets is recognition of the seamless
nature of environmental or sustainable development
issues. Excluding this “seamless” reality from planning
processes, even if the planning is done for sectoral interests (say, biodiversity or climate change for instance), is
not conducive to holistic planning: it prevents any
attempt to capitalise on synergies that could arise in
implementing various programmes on overlapping areas
in multilateral forums. Furthermore, often awarenessraising programmes of different environmental institutions have similar messages that could be dovetailed
within such broader concepts as ESD. For a start, there
are some laudable efforts at synergizing the UN DESD
(2005-2014) and the proposed UN Decade of Biodiversity (2011-2020), for both of which UN decades were
initially called for by a consortium of Japanese NGOs
(Noguchi, 2010, this issue).
Speaking of synergies, it would also be useful to explore ways of engaging popular media in raising awareness, especially given their role in influencing lifestyleand consumption choices of people. Key to all educational or awareness programs is the packaging of themessage that is sought to be conveyed to different actors.
Studies by communication researchers indicate thatawareness raising for biodiversity amounts to integrating
soft messages, referring to concepts of the grandeur ofnature, and hard messages, referring to concepts related
to the economic value of nature and why we need it, withactions relevant to each actor – individual, teacher,activist, civil society organization or policymaker(Futerra, 2010). These messages also need to convey thecomplexities in the cause-consequence mosaic thatdevelops from human-nature interactions in a simple andeasy to understand manner.
Today, we do have enough evidence to show that ac-tion is needed to save biodiversity and ecosystems, andthe necessary policies to set such action in motion.
However, these will come to naught if those who have toimplement them are not suitably impressed. A deliberate
and flexible strategy to inspire effective action andbuilding necessary capacity amidst different groups istherefore imperative.

6. Conclusions
The paper gives an overview of issues and approaches
to dealing with ecological conservation, development,
equity and education. It provides the basis for arguments
for the need to have better and more effective educationaland communication tools to raise awareness on issues
related to biodiversity and ecosystem services. As they
relate to the provision of various goods and services vitalto human and planetary survival and well-being, it isimportant to highlight to all relevant stakeholders – consumers, producers and intermediaries involved in the
supply chain of a biological resource or a service – theinterconnectedness of each of their actions on the potential well-being of others and the environment. Unless thisis done effectively through a mix of education and awareness-raising tools, there is a risk of perpetuating unsustainable consumption and production patterns. In
addition to defining the problem, it is also important todesign appropriate mechanisms that enhance the capacities of different actors to take proactive and responsible
action at their levels and regions of operation.
References
Blair, M. (2008) Community environmental education as a modelfor effective environmental programmes. Australian Journal ofEnvironmental Education, 24:45-53.
Capra, F. and G. Pauli, eds. (1995) Steering Business toward
Sustainability, UNU Press.
CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity)
https://www.cbd.int/convention/wgabs.shtm
Costanza, R. and C. Folke (1997) Valuing ecosystem services withefficiency, fairness and sustainability as goals. In: Daily,
Gretchen C., ed., Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on
Natural Ecosystems, 49-68. Island Press, Washington D.C.
Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Updating and Revisionof the Strategic Plan for the Post-2010 Period.
Down to Earth Newsletter (2005) International Campaign for
Ecological Justice in Indonesia. No. 66.
http://dte.gn.apc.org/news.htm
FAO (2005) The state of food and agriculture, 2005, agricultural
trade and poverty: can trade work for the poor? FAO Agriculture
Series (SOFA), 36.
Futerra Sustainability Communications (2010) Branding Biodiversity: The new Nature Message, UK.
IPCC (2007) Summary for Policymakers. In: S. Solomon, D. Qin,
M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and
H.L. Miller, eds., Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment
report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge University Press, UK, and USA.
IUCN/UNEP/WWF (1991) Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for
Sustainable Living. Gland, Switzerland.

Biodiversity, Sustainability and Education: Are We Doing Enough to Connect the Dots?
Lundqvist, J., C. de Fraiture and D. Molden (2008) Saving water:from field to fork: Curbing losses and WASTAGE in the foodchain. SIWI Policy Brief. SIWI.
http://www.siwi.org/documents/Resources/Policy_Briefs/PB_F
rom_Filed_to_fork_2008.pdf (last accessed 28 July, 2010).
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems andHuman Wellbeing: Biodiversity Synthesis, World Resources
Institute, Washington D.C.
Noguchi, F. (2010) Identifying key elements of community-based
ESD: ESD-J’s projects to collect ESD in practice in Japan andAsia. Global Environmental Research, 14: 137-146.
Olsen, C. Smith and H. O. Larsen (2003) Alpine medicinal plant
trade and Himalayan mountain livelihood strategies. The
Geographical Journal, 169(3): 243-254.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3451450 (last accessed 25 Jul, 2010).
Schroeder, D. and P. Balakrishna (2010) Ethics, Justice and theConvention on Biological Diversity, UNEP, Nairobi.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010)
Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, Montreal.
Subramanian, S.M. and B. Pisupati, eds. (2010) Traditional
Knowledge in Policy and Practice: Approaches to Development
and Human Well Being, UNU Press, Tokyo.
Suneetha.M.S. (2010) Sustainability issues for biodiversity business, Sustainability Science, 5:79-87.
Suneetha.M.S. and P. Balakrishna (2009) Learning from thePractitioners: Benefit Sharing Perspectives from Enterprising
Communities, UNU-IAS and UNEP.
The World Bank (2010) Development and Climate Change, World
Development Report. The World Bank, Washington D.C.
TEEB (2009) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for
National and International Policy Makers, Summary: Responding to the value of nature, Welzel+Hardt, Germany.
TEEB (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
Report for Business-Executive Summary, Progress Press, Malta.
UNDESA (2010) The Millennium Development Goals Report
2010. New York.
UNEP (2009) The Role of Ecosystem Management in Climate
Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction, Issues Paper
for the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction, UNEP.
UNEP (2010) Advancing the Biodiversity Agenda: A UN System wide Contribution, Report by the Environment Management
Group, UNEP, France.
UNESCO (2005) Teaching and Learning for a Sustainable Future:
A Multimedia Teacher Education Programme, UNESCO, Paris.
UNESCO (2006) Promotion of a Global Partnership for the UN
Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2015):
The International Implementation Scheme for the Decade in153

brief, ED-2006/WS/60, UNESCO, Paris.
UNESCO (2010) UNESCO Strategy for the Second Half of the UN
Decade of Education for Sustainable Development: Supporting
Member States and Stakeholders in Addressing Global
Sustainable Development Challenges through ESD,
ED/UNP/ESD, UNESCO, Paris.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development)(1987) Our Common Future, Oxford University Press.

M.S. SUNEETHA
M.S. Suneetha is a Research Fellow at the United
Nations University Institute of Advanced
Studies, Japan. She has been researching bioenterprises and benefit sharing and their socioeconomic-political implications. Her current
research interests pertain to valuation of
ecosystem services from a multi-stakeholder and multi-scalar perspective,
and in identifying policy-practice linkages that improve the wellbeing of
local communities and their ecosystems.

P. BALAKRISHNA
P. Balakrishna holds a Ph.D. in Genetics and iscurrently the Head of Biodiversity, Land andGovernance Programmes at the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) based in
Nairobi. Prior to this this he was the Coordinatorof the Biodiplomacy Programme at the United
Nations University-Institute of Advanced Study (UNU-IAS) and Head of
IUCN's Asia Regional Biodiversity Programme. He is an Academic Board
Member of Minzu University, China and an invited Fellow of the American
Association for the Advancement of Sciences. His interests include
conservation, development and governance issues. He has widely
published on these issues and advises several governments on conservationand development policy.

(Received 16 November 2010, Accepted 24 December 2010)