BIODIVERSITY 

CONSERVATION: 

A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS


SEPTEMBER 2005 

This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International 

Development. It was prepared in cooperation with ARD, Inc., USAID technical staff, and partners. 
ABOUT THIS GUIDE 
 

GOAL 

The goal of this Guide is to provide USAID staff and partners with basic information about designing, 

managing, and implementing biodiversity conservation programs or activities. What do you need to know, as a 

USAID manager, to design, implement, manage, and evaluate a biodiversity conservation program or activity? 

What are the critical elements of success for biodiversity programs and activities? How can activities be 

designed that will simultaneously meet USAID administrative and legal requirements while ensuring that 

development goals are addressed using best conservation practice and approaches? 

Biodiversity conservation is an evolving, dynamic field, and this Guide serves as a starting point to shape and 

guide programs or activities that should ultimately be implemented based on local environmental and 

socioeconomic conditions and capacity of implementing partners, and should be managed adaptively in the 

field. 

This Guide is also intended to be a starting point and to provide useful information about USAID’s approach to 

biodiversity for our partners and colleagues. 

AUDIENCES 

The Guide is intended for a broad audience including USAID mission and Washington staff, implementing 

partners, and multiple stakeholders within and across sectors. 

For our colleagues in the donor community, we hope that this Guide is useful in understanding the history, 

approach, and operating mechanisms for biodiversity funding of one of the largest bilateral donors of 

biodiversity conservation, and to introduce possible opportunities to foster closer donor coordination and 

explore joint or complimentary programs. 

We would like to acknowledge all of those individuals and organizations who have assisted the EGAT 

Biodiversity Team in researching, writing, and reviewing this publication. 

This Guide was designed and developed by a diversity of USAID technical experts, Agency partners, and funded 

specialists with the support of ARD, Inc. for the U.S. Agency for International Development and funded under 

the Biodiversity and Sustainable Forestry Indefinite Quantity Contract (BIOFOR) LAG-I-00-99-00013-00, Task 

Order 2. 

For more information, contact Cynthia Gill, Biodiversity Team Leader, (202) 712-4177, cgill@usaid.gov 

or Jim Talbot, BIOFOR Project Manager, ARD, Inc, (802) 658-3890, jtalbot@ardinc.com. 

COVER PHOTO: 

The Congo River, as the fifth longest river in the world, supports both the highly biodiverse ecosystems and the livelihoods of the Congo 

Basin. Credit: Jeff Dupain, African Wildlife Foundation. 
BIODIVERSITY 

CONSERVATION: 

A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 

SEPTEMBER 2005 

DISCLAIMER 

The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United 

States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. 
CONTENTS
 

Preface.................................................................................................................................................................iii
 

I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. 1
 

Principles for Effective Biodiversity Programs......................................................................................2
 

1.0 Overview of USAID and Biodiversity...........................................................................................3
 

2.0 The State and Importance of Biodiversity...................................................................................9
 

II. CONSERVATION PLANNING ........................................................ 17
 

3.0 Issues of Scale......................................................................................................................................19
 

4.0 Involving Stakeholders......................................................................................................................23
 

5.0 Analyzing Conservation Threats and Opportunities...........................................................28
 

6.0 Choosing Conservation Priorities............................................................................................... 31
 

7.0 Designing Activities...........................................................................................................................34
 

8.0 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Managing Adaptively.................................................................. 39
 

9.0 Financing Conservation....................................................................................................................43
 

III. CONSERVATION APPROACHES ................................................. 49
 

10.0 Protected Areas..................................................................................................................................51
 

10.1 Community Conserved Areas........................................................................................56
 

10.2 Marine Protected Areas....................................................................................................59
 

10.3 Transboundary Protected Areas.................................................................................... 61
 

10.4 Private Protected Areas.................................................................................................... 64
 

11.0 Community-Based Conservation.................................................................................................66
 

11.1 Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and Indigenous Areas..................................71
 

11.2 Traditional or Local Ecological Knowledge...............................................................73
 

12.0 Sustainable Use...................................................................................................................................76
 

12.1 Forestry....................................................................................................................................82
 

12.2 Non-Timber Forest Products.........................................................................................85
 

12.3 Agroforestry...........................................................................................................................89
 

12.4 Fisheries...................................................................................................................................90
 

12.5 Ecotourism..............................................................................................................................93
 

13.0 Environmental Communication.................................................................................................... 96
 

14.0 Policy Development and Reform...............................................................................................100
 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS i 
IV. CROSS-SECTORAL LINKAGES FOR BIODIVERSITY 

CONSERVATION........................................................................... 107 

15.0 Agriculture..........................................................................................................................................109
 

15.1 Ecoagriculture......................................................................................................................111 

15.2 Rangeland Management and Pastoralism ..................................................................114 

15.3 Aquaculture..........................................................................................................................116 

16.0 Biotechnology....................................................................................................................................118
 

17.0 Conflict.................................................................................................................................................121
 

18.0 Conservation Enterprise Development..................................................................................124
 

19.0 Democracy and Governance.......................................................................................................128
 

20.0 Global Climate Change..................................................................................................................132
 

21.0 Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Response................................................................135
 

22.0 Human Population and Health, including HIV/AIDS ..........................................................138
 

23.0 Nonrenewable Extractive Industry: Energy and Mining....................................................141
 

24.0 Urban Issues.......................................................................................................................................144
 

25.0 Watersheds and Water Resources.........................................................................................146
 

V. USAID PROGRAM INFORMATION ............................................. 149
 

26.0 Implementing Mechanisms and Partners.................................................................................151
 

27.0 International Treaties.....................................................................................................................156
 

28.0 U.S. Legislation..................................................................................................................................163
 

29.0 USAID Regulations, Policies, and Procedures......................................................................165
 

Abbreviations and Acronyms.................................................................................................................167
 

Glossary..........................................................................................................................................................171
 

Bibliography...................................................................................................................................................176
 

ii BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
PREFACE 
 

In the four years since the first edition of this Guide, progress has been made in conserving what my 

predecessor and friend, Bill Sugrue, (the former USAID Natural Resources Management Office Director), 

called the “biosphere...an almost incomprehensively complex phenomenon in which all species—including 

humans—play interactive and interdependent roles.” At the World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa in 

2003, the global community acknowledged that a total of 10 percent of the Earth’s surface was dedicated to 

protection of biological diversity. Perhaps the single most notable, recent conservation achievement was the 

declaration by Madagascar President Marc Ravolamanana of his firm intention to triple the area covered by 

protected areas over the next five years, in a country that contains an incredible wealth of biodiversity under 

intense threat from habitat conversion and degradation. USAID and other organizations are aiding the 

Malagasy in making that commitment a reality. The effort, like many of the recent biodiversity conservation 

activities, seeks to make the choice to conserve a rational one that benefits both local people and the stability of 

ecosystems. 

Biodiversity conservation is a priority for USAID since healthy, biodiverse ecosystems form an important 

foundation for economic and social development globally (http://www.usaid.gov/our work/environment/ 

biodiversity/index.html). For example, through USAID’s Global Conservation Program, Enterprise Works 

Worldwide has supported community forest user groups in biodiverse areas of Nepal, who have been able to 

generate over U.S. $1 million from sustainable forest-based products, while taking pressure off of local 

ecosystems. The Wildlife Conservation Society has been very successful in Bolivia with the establishment of 

functioning co-management arrangements with local indigenous communities near Madidi National Park. 

Further, USAID support has also seen great success in transboundary biodiversity conservation with the 

Central African Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE), which was endorsed in February of 2005 by 

10 heads of state in the region who, through the signing of a treaty, established a new forestry commission and 

a subregional fund to finance the conservation of the area. 

USAID is expanding its programs to conserve biodiversity and this edition of the Guide reflects that growth. 

USAID support for such programs increased 24 percent from Fiscal Year 2002 to 2005. Those programs focus 

on priority biodiversity regions, landscapes, and ecosystems. We have gone beyond this geographic and 

sectoral focus and expanded the vision of biodiversity conservation cross-sectorally by actively linking with 

other sectors to ensure that positive conservation benefits are pursued along with improvements in agriculture, 

aquaculture and fisheries, forestry, tourism, biotechnology, health, and governance programs, and can take 

advantage of cross-sectoral synergies for biodiversity conservation. This edition of the Guide includes an 

expanded presentation on the cross-sectoral linkages to enable users to expand their horizons in biodiversity 

conservation. The Guide continues to be our best effort to provide insights and a common vocabulary for 

readers in and beyond USAID to improve the effectiveness of future conservation programs. 

The biodiversity conservation struggle is far from over and the outcome is far from assured. Bill Sugrue 

pointed out four years ago that “the health of the biosphere is increasingly dependent on the responsible 

behavior of the human species...unfortunately, we have not been behaving very well.” That is still the case. 

Truly sustainable use of the planet’s ecosystems has been elusive. We all need to redouble our commitment to 

achieve a sustainable future. This Guide is intended to make a modest contribution to that end. 

David Hess 

Director, Office of Natural Resources Management 

Bureau of Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade 

USAID 

Summer 2005 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS iii 

I. INTRODUCTION 

1.0 Overview of USAID and Biodiversity 
 

2.0 The State and Importance of Biodiversity
 

PATRICK SMITH, USAID/NRM/B 

A community fish sanctuary patrol in Hail Haor, one of Bangladesh s inland fresh water wetlands. The 

USAID MACH project has supported local communities in obtaining a long term lease for this no take area. 

In just a few years fish biodiversity and fish population size in neighboring wetlands has increased, allowing 

for larger sustainable harvests of valuable fish protein for the poorest members of the community. 
PRINCIPLES FOR EFFECTIVE
 

BIODIVERSITY PROGRAMS 
 

USAID has identified several principles for effective biodiversity conservation that should be integrated 

into USAID programs. USAID hopes that this will be a useful checklist for program design. Information 

on how to implement these concepts is found throughout the Guide. 

•	 Programs should apply threats-based conservation. Conservation programs should clearly identify 

the threats (at all scales) to biodiversity and delineate a threat abatement plan. Programs should 

implement activities that reduce, eliminate or mitigate threats and their underlying root causes. 

•	 Programs should be adaptive. While the initial design of program activities should be sound, 

conservation needs are complex and constantly evolving. Programs should be structured in such a 

way that they monitor their progress, generate timely information for management, and adapt the 

program as needed. 

•	 Programs should focus on priority sites for biodiversity conservation. USAID programs should 

conserve biodiversity of global, regional, or national priority as appropriate. 

•	 Programs should be results oriented. Programs should clearly articulate their underlying 

assumptions, rationale, and methods for achieving planned results. They should also describe how 

program impacts on biodiversity will be measured and monitored. Efforts to measure habitat quantity 

or quality are encouraged where appropriate. 

•	 Programs should foster sustainability. Programs should (1) focus on how conservation 

achievements will be sustainable beyond the end of the activity lifetime, and (2) seek to identify 

continued financing for ongoing activities. For programs that include resource extraction activities, 

managers should examine the likelihood that extractive activities will be ecologically, socially, and 

economically sustainable; how overharvesting will be controlled; and how extractive use will 

contribute directly to biodiversity conservation. 

•	 Programs should be participatory. Programs should incorporate the equitable and active 

involvement of stakeholders in all stages of program design and implementation. Particular 

consideration should be given to the inclusion of traditionally marginalized stakeholders, such as 

women, indigenous peoples, and the poorest of the poor. 

•	 Programs should strengthen in-country capacity. To increase the sustainability of conservation 

interventions, strengthening in-country capacity is key at both the human and institutional levels. 

Institutional strengthening may be needed for both government and nongovernmental organizations 

(NGOs). 

•	 Programs should include a learning component and disseminate lessons learned. Analysis of 

program results and dissemination of lessons learned should be part of program activities, particularly 

programs at multiple sites or larger scales. 

•	 Programs should either complement other conservation and development activities or fill 

specific crucial gaps. In particular, programs should examine how they will complement activities of 

USAID, other donors, host-country governments, the private sector, non-profits, and other 

institutions. 

2 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
1.0 OVERVIEW OF USAID AND 

BIODIVERSITY 

WHAT IS BIODIVERSITY? 

Biological diversity, or biodiversity, is the variety and variability of living organisms broadly including a 

wide diversity of plant and animal species, communities, and ecosystems. The Earth’s biodiversity 

consists of genes, species, and ecological processes making up terrestrial, marine, and freshwater 

ecosystems that both support and result from this diversity. All of these elements and living systems 

interact with each other to produce the web of life on Earth—the biosphere—a whole much greater than 

the sum of its parts on which every human being is dependant. Biodiversity is currently in a humaninduced state of precipitous decline globally (see Chapter 2, The State and Importance of Biodiversity). 

Due to this decline and the interconnected nature of biodiversity and human well-being, the conservation 

of biodiversity is an international development priority for USAID. 

Genes are the smallest elements of biological diversity. They combine in unique patterns to form 

individuals and populations of each species. Genetic diversity within each species changes over 

generations, shaped by interactions with other species and the ecosystem. Genetic diversity refers to the 

variation at the individual gene level and provides a mechanism for populations to adapt to their everchanging environment. The more variation, the better the chance that individuals will be genetically 

equipped to survive and thrive in the local environment, eventually producing future generations with 

these traits, through a process called evolution. 

Species are considered a fundamental unit of life and essential elements of ecosystems, and are generally 

an identifiable group of (potentially) interbreeding organisms that is able to produce viable offspring. 

Examples of species include the eastern bluebird of the Unites States, the common fruit fly, the Bengal 

Tiger of India, and over 5,000 orchid species worldwide. Some species play a larger role in ecosystems 

than others: strong interactor species are species whose disappearance would have significant 

repercussions on at least one other species. Keystone species are those strong interactors whose removal 

would have a significant effect on the entire ecosystem and that may have a dominant influence over the 

structure of ecosystems. African elephants are a good example of a keystone species because their feeding 

controls the balance of trees and grassland in many savanna ecosystems. 

The diversity of ecosystems, ecological processes, and communities is another aspect of biodiversity. 

Populations of species interact with each other in a variety of ecological relationships to form what 

biologists call ecosystems. An ecosystem is the interaction of a natural community (biological life) with 

its physical and chemical environment and the resulting ecological processes of such interaction. 

Marshlands, tropical rainforests, savannas, deserts, and coral reefs are examples of ecosystems. The 

feeding relationships of species, in which some species eat other species, thereby allowing energy to flow 

through the food webs of ecosystems, as well as the pollination of plants by insects and the control of 

species by their predators are examples of ecological processes. The cycling of nutrients that maintain soil 

fertility and the cycling of water through ecosystems are also ecological processes. The diversity within 

and among as well as the distribution and representation of these ecosystems and processes make up 

biodiversity. These processes are created when species interact with each other and with the physical 

environment. Each species, including humans, depends on these processes for survival. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 3 
As this brief description indicates, biodiversity is not a simple concept but is complex, dynamic and 

multifaceted, as is its conservation. 

USAID AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION 

Biodiversity and functioning ecosystems make up the foundation for human well-being. USAID 

recognizes that improving livelihoods, security, and human health depends on the conservation of 

biodiversity in healthy ecosystems. It is well established that conservation, economic growth and 

governance are interdependent. Because of this interdependence, a number of USAID programs focus on 

biodiversity conservation as a critical component of achieving wider development goals. 

The centrality of biodiversity conservation in achieving global development goals is recognized in the 

articulation of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), established in August of 2002 at the World 

Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). MDG Goal 7, “Achieving Environmental Sustainability,” 

identified biodiversity conservation as foundation for the other MDGs. USAID supports the conservation 

of biodiversity because it bears directly on U.S. foreign assistance goals in the following contexts: 

•	 Promoting transformational development. The conservation and sustainable management of 

biodiversity can strengthen participatory governance and enhance economic growth and human 

quality of life by conserving the resources and ecosystems people depend on for their well-being, 

therefore contributing to USAID’s goal of promoting transformational development. 

•	 Strengthening fragile states. The equitable and transparent conservation and management of 

biodiversity through capacity and institution building can improve governance systems, reduce 

conflict over resources, contribute to political and social stability and address the root causes of many 

unmet basic human needs, strengthening fragile states. 

•	 Supporting U.S. geostrategic interests. The sustainable and equitable management, governance and 

conservation of biodiversity can contribute to increased stability and prosperity in areas of the world 

that the U.S. government has identified as geostrategic priorities. 

•	 Providing humanitarian relief. Conserving intact ecosystems and biodiversity can play an important 

role in mitigating or minimizing the impacts of natural disasters (such as floods, landslides, droughts) 

and violent conflict, and resulting humanitarian emergencies. Additionally, taking appropriate 

measures during the provision of humanitarian relief can minimize the impacts of these activities on 

local ecosystems and lay the foundation for longer-term development. 

•	 Mitigating global and transnational issues. In addition to contributing to other development goals, 

conserving biodiversity is a goal of U.S. foreign assistance in its own right. Biodiversity is a critical 

global resource for current and future generations, and USAID has a clear mandate to conserve this 

resource. 

The U.S. has taken a leading role in preventing biodiversity loss, and is currently one of the largest 

bilateral supporters of biodiversity conservation of any donor. The U.S. Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) 

requires that USAID address biodiversity concerns. Section 119 of the FAA emphasizes the importance 

of biodiversity conservation and instructs USAID to give high priority to preventing biodiversity loss 

(please see http://www.usaid.gov/our work/environment/compliance/faa section 119.htm). In another 

important section of the Foreign Assistance Act, Section 118, Congress has instructed USAID to address 

the loss of tropical forests, which are among the most species-rich ecosystems on Earth 

(http://www.usaid.gov/our work/environment/compliance/faa section 118.htm). 

4 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
Congressional support for USAID’s biodiversity conservation efforts has grown stronger in recent years 

starting with directives for maintaining the Agency’s investments and culminating in an earmark for 

$165.5 million in USAID support for biodiversity in Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. 

USAID’S APPROACH TO BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION 

USAID assists developing countries in maintaining biologically diverse ecosystems and environmental 

services while supporting sustainable development and economic growth. USAID’s major emphasis in 

biodiversity conservation is to help countries maintain and manage wild biodiversity in situ, in natural 

settings such as forests, grasslands, wetlands, marine, and coastal habitats. In situ conservation maintains 

not only individual species, but also functioning ecosystems and the services they provide. 

USAID pioneered and now supports one of the most comprehensive biodiversity conservation programs 

of any bilateral donor. USAID’s approach to conservation has evolved since the 1980s from programs 

that focused on protected area management to programs that now emphasize biodiversity conservation 

across large landscapes. The current approach recognizes that biodiversity cannot be conserved only in 

isolated areas and that much of the world’s biodiversity is not located in protected areas. This approach 

underscores that participation by local stakeholders in conservation programs is critical to their success. 

USAID emphasizes developing appropriate activities to reduce key threats to biodiversity in priority 

landscapes. Since the threats to biodiversity are wide-ranging, from local small-scale agriculture to 

industrial timber production, the tools available for conservation intervention are equally broad. 

Conservationists are as likely to be negotiating the adoption of best practices for mining and logging as 

strengthening local enforcement capacity and implementing environmental education programs. 

LINKING BIODIVERSITY AND DEVELOPMENT CROSS-SECTORALLY 

One of USAID’s strengths in biodiversity conservation is its insistence that biodiversity conservation be 

integrated with development activities and goals. Biodiversity is a critical local resource, providing for 

livelihoods, watershed protection, direct economic opportunities, and local cultural needs. It is also a 

national and global resource. USAID and its partners work with local citizens and decision makers in 

community-managed lands, private lands, and protected areas, employing a range of conservation 

approaches. 

The approaches the Agency applies in its biodiversity conservation programs include: 

• Economic incentives for conservation (see Chapter 9), 

• Protected area management (see Chapter 10), 

• Community-based conservation (see Chapter 11), 

• Sustainable use of natural resources (see Chapter 12), 

• Environmental communication (see Chapter 13), 

• Policy development and reform (see Chapter 14), and 

• Cross-sectoral linkages to biodiversity conservation (see Section IV). 

USAID’s conservation efforts increasingly link and integrate with other sectors, such as economic 

growth, agriculture, democracy and governance, health, and natural resources management. Biodiversity 

conservation is frequently an element of a larger program focusing on economic growth, watershed 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 5 
conservation, or strengthening of civil society. At other times, livelihood, governance, and health 

objectives are integrated as elements of a larger biodiversity conservation program. 

This integration is mutually beneficial. For example, a USAID-supported program in Tanzania combines 

work with local women on HIV/AIDS prevention and coastal resource management activities. This 

program aims to improve both human and ecosystem health while empowering women and building 

capacity through these activities. (See Section IV, Cross-Sectoral Linkages for Biodiversity Conservation 

for more on this subject.) 

In some countries, a USAID mission may support biodiversity conservation for national or local reasons, 

such as the conservation of a watershed for local economic use and clean water supply, in addition to 

supporting areas of global biodiversity priority. USAID-supported programs work to conserve many 

kinds of ecosystems, including forests, grasslands, wetlands, deserts, coasts, and oceans. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 

Biodiversity conservation and Natural Resources Management (NRM) are not interchangeable terms or 

concepts. Natural resources include water, minerals, and living organisms (such as plants and animals). 

Therefore, natural resources include the diversity and variability of life on Earth, or biodiversity (thus making 

biodiversity a subset of natural resources). But, while the conservation of biodiversity falls within the 

management of natural resources, not all NRM activities qualify as biodiversity conservation. As examples, a 

watershed management program may be designed with the objectives of conserving water for crop irrigation, 

providing safe drinking water, reducing siltation of a hydroelectric facility, reducing the flooding of shrimp 

ponds, or reducing toxins in fish to assure a safe food supply. These activities are NRM activities, but do not 

specifically conserve biodiversity in the watershed. On the other hand, reducing siltation that threatens a 

significant coral reef, maintaining threatened ecosystems and habitats in the upper watershed, and reducing 

water pollution that threatens endangered aquatic plants and animals can qualify as biodiversity conservation. In 

such cases, support for those elements of a USAID mission or bureau program that have a direct , positive 

benefit to biodiversity could be counted toward meeting the Agency’s biodiversity earmark (please also see 

“Biodiversity Coding—USAID’s Internal Definition” on page 8). Similar distinctions could be applied to 

numerous other activities involving agriculture, agroforestry, tourism, non-timber forest products (NTFPs), 

integrated pest management, fuel efficient wood cooking stoves, etc. In most cases, programs with a mix of 

biodiversity and non biodiversity objectives will not count 100% toward biodiversity. A careful application of 

the criteria in the Agency’s biodiversity code, though, should allow for a good estimate of what portion of the 

program can be attributed to the biodiversity earmark. 

USAID’S INVESTMENT IN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION 

The Agency’s sustained biodiversity conservation funding began with $5 million in FY 1987 and 

increased to $90 million in FY 1992, as shown in Figure 1. These amounts include all funding sources: 

Development Assistance (DA), Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States (AEEB), Economic 

Support Funds (ESF), and the Freedom Support Act (FSA). Levels of biodiversity funding fluctuated in 

subsequent years; however, since FY 1997, USAID funding for biodiversity has experienced a steady 

increase, reaching $165 million in FY 2003, from all sources of funding. 

6 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
FIGURE 1. USAID ESTIMATED BUDGETS FOR BIODIVERSITY
 

CONSERVATION 1987-2003 (ALL ACCOUNTS)
 

5 

12 

18 

53 

72 

90 

78 74 

105 9 

64 3 61 3 67 1 

74 4 78 1 

95 4 

125 8 

165 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 

US$ million 

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Fiscal Year 

USAID’S DEFINITION OF BIODIVERSITY PROGRAMS 

Biodiversity activities and programs have become more complex and better integrated with other Agency 

development programs. At the same time, the Agency has been required, due to a Congressional earmark, 

to program additional funds for biodiversity activities. As a result, a clear definition of what constitutes a 

biodiversity program has become critical. The Agency’s “biodiversity code” guides the Agency in 

determining what programs are included in the accounting toward the biodiversity earmark. Within the 

Code are four key criteria, all of which must be met to be considered a biodiversity program: 

•	 The program must have an explicit biodiversity objective, it is not enough to have biodiversity 

conservation result as a positive externality from another program (Chapters 5 and 6). 

•	 Activities must be identified based on an analysis of threats to biodiversity (Chapter 5). 

•	 The program must monitor associated indicators for biodiversity conservation (Chapter 8). 

•	 Site-based programs must positively impact biologically significant areas (Chapters 3 and 6). 

Each year, the country-level and centrally funded programs are reviewed in Washington for consistency 

with this definition and with the Code. Please note that all USAID programs and activities should strive to 

be “biodiversity friendly” but may not qualify as biodiversity conservation within the Agency’s 

biodiversity code. Further, some examples and activities presented in this Guide are biodiversity friendly, 

but would not necessarily qualify as biodiversity conservation within the Agency’s biodiversity code. 

(For the most up-to-date information on the biodiversity code and definition, USAID employees may 

access the USAID Intranet). 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 7 
BIODIVERSITY CODING—USAID S INTERNAL DEFINITION 

Primary Code: Activities have a primary objective of conserving biological diversity in natural and managed 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Activities are identified through an analysis of the threats to biodiversity and have 

associated indicators for biodiversity conservation, preferably at the strategic objective level. Activities may be site 

based or not site specific, such as policy level initiatives. Site-based work is implemented in biologically significant 

areas. Ex situ conservation of wild species, and their germplasm, may also be included when explicitly for the purpose 

of biodiversity conservation. 

Secondary Code: Activities have biodiversity conservation as an explicit, but not primary, objective in natural and 

managed terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Activities are identified through an analysis of the threats to biodiversity 

and have associated indicators for biodiversity conservation. Activities may be site-based or not site specific, such as 

policy level initiatives. Site-based work is implemented in biologically significant areas. Ex situ conservation of wild 

species, and their germplasm, may also be included when explicitly linked to biodiversity conservation. 

USAID’S BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION CAPACITY 

The majority of biodiversity conservation programs are implemented through the USAID missions, many 

of which have successful, long-term programs that conserve areas of global, national, and local priority. 

These missions may or may not have staff with expertise in environmental issues and conservation of 

biodiversity, depending on their strategic objectives and staff size. The USAID Biodiversity Working 

Group therefore plays a key role in coordinating biodiversity programs across the Agency. The group 

includes representatives from the regional bureaus and pillar bureaus. In order to promote the 

conservation of biodiversity, the USAID Biodiversity Team, located within the Natural Resources 

Management Office of The Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture, and Trade (EGAT): 

•	 Provides technical and programmatic support to missions; 

•	 Promotes USAID’s approach to conservation, including a development focus and a threats-based 

approach to conservation, in global fora and the conservation community; and 

•	 Implements a portfolio of in situ conservation activities to support mission programs and global 

initiatives, and to test cutting-edge approaches. 

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

8 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 

•	 Federal Assistance Act of 1961 as Amended (please see Sustainable Use—Forestry sections): 

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/environment/compliance/laws.html 

•	 United Nations Millennium Goals: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ 

•	 USAID’s Biodiversity Conservation work: 

http://www.usaid.gov/our work/environment/biodiversity/index.html 
2.0 	 THE STATE AND 

IMPORTANCE OF 

BIODIVERSITY 

WHERE IS BIODIVERSITY? 

Biodiversity, the variety and variability of life, is found on every continent and in every ocean worldwide 

from Arctic tundra, to deserts and grasslands of Africa, to the steppes of Central Asia, and tropical 

rainforests of South America, Africa, and Asia. It is certainly not the case that biodiversity only exists in 

tropical ecosystems, such as tropical rainforests and coral reefs, nor that its conservation is a priority only in 

those species-rich ecosystems. Some areas do have a higher priority for biodiversity conservation than 

others at the global or national level. 

At the global level, conservation and scientific organizations have identified global priority areas for 

biodiversity conservation. Although there is some variability in the prioritization of these areas, they 

generally contain high species richness and high levels of endemism, contain ecosystems which are unique 

and representative, provide essential environmental goods and services, and face serious threats. USAID 

supports biodiversity conservation on the global level through the Global Conservation Program in some of 

these areas. 

At the national level, biodiversity priority areas are being established worldwide through the National 

Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan process required under the Convention on Biological Diversity 

(CBD). Under the Convention, national governments commit to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity, 

to develop national biodiversity strategies and action plans, and to integrate these into broader national 

plans for environment and development. These plans clearly identify priority areas for biodiversity 

conservation. Biodiversity conservation priorities are also identified through the Tropical Forestry and 

Biodiversity analyses that USAID conducts to comply with Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) Sections 118 and 

119 (see Chapter 28, U.S. Legislation). The analyses are in part based on CBD National Action Plan priority 

areas and should incorporate other scientifically robust research and analysis on biodiversity priority areas 

at the national level. USAID supports biodiversity conservation at the national level through missionfunded programs and activities. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 9 
FIGURE 2. GLOBAL 200 MARINE AND FRESHWATER ECOREGIONS

10 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAF
FIGURE 3. GLOBAL 200 TERRESTRIAL ECOREGIONS

© Wo

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
Please note: the maps presented on the previous pages offer one widely held perspective on global 

biodiversity priority areas, but should not be taken as a consensus of the global conservation community 

nor as official USAID guidance (or code). Please refer to the “Sources for More Information” section at 

the end of this chapter for more information on biodiversity priority areas. 

WHY IS BIODIVERSITY VALUABLE? 

Biodiversity has many values, both material and nonmaterial. Material values include both direct uses and 

ecosystem services. Direct uses of biotic resources meet human needs for food, fuel, fiber, shelter, and 

medicine. The importance and value of ecosystem services in providing our life support system are 

increasingly recognized (see Table 1). Biodiversity can help buffer variations in weather and climate. For 

example, forests can soak up, store, and slowly release water, and protect watersheds and soil from 

erosion following the extreme winds and torrential rains of hurricanes. 

THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF BIODIVERSITY 

Although biodiversity can be considered a part of the larger concept of “natural resources,” the following 

are some estimates of the direct economic or monetary values of biodiversity and ecosystem services: 

•	 In the United States, wild species contribute around 4.5 percent of GDP (De Leo and Levin, 1997). 

•	 Billions of people around the world still harvest wild food. Between one-fifth and one-half of the food 

consumed by the poor in the developing world is gathered rather than cultivated, while at the global 

level, 16 percent of our animal protein comes from marine fisheries (Harrison and Pearce, 2001). 

•	 Approximately 80 percent of the developing world’s people rely on traditional medicines derived 

from wild plants (WHO, UNEP, Harvard Medical School, 2002). 

•	 Most food crops require a constant infusion of genes from wild relatives to maintain their resistance 

to ever-evolving pests. Incorporating “wild” genes is responsible for increases in crop productivity of 

about 1 percent a year, worth more than $1 billion (Rosenthal and Grifo, 1997). 

•	 Seventy-five percent of the world’s staple crops rely on mammal, insect, or bird species for 

pollination (Daily, 1997). Crops valued at over U.S. $40 billion a year are completely dependent on 

the free ecological service of natural pollination by insects. 

•	 Biological pest control saves an annual revenue of U.S. $100 to 200 billion, and biological nitrogen 

fixation has an estimated annual worth of U.S. $50 billion (Balakrishna and Warner, 2003). 

•	 Globally, about 40 percent of modern drugs come from the wild, worth more than $40 billion a year 

(Tuxill, 1999). Approximately 118 out of the top 150 prescription drugs sold in the United States are 

laboratory versions of chemicals first found in wild plants, fungi, bacteria, or even animals such as 

snakes (Shand, 1997). Aspirin, for instance, derives from an acid first taken from the bark of willow 

trees. The promising anti-cancer drug taxol was first extracted from the wild Pacific Yew tree. 

•	 Ecosystems such as forests, wetlands, and coral reefs store carbon and regulate the atmosphere’s 

carbon balance, stabilizing Earth’s climate, an ecosystem service the value of which is difficult to 

estimate. 

•	 Species ranging from bacteria to plants absorb and break down pollutants in the atmosphere, water, 

and soil, an ecosystem service the value of which is difficult to estimate. 

12 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
TABLE 1. ECOSYSTEM SERVICE VALUES OF BIODIVERSITY
 

What are nature’s life support services worth? In one of the first efforts to calculate a global number, a team of 

researchers has put an average price tag of U.S. $33 trillion a year on these fundamental ecosystem services—nearly 

twice the value of the global gross national product of U.S. $18 trillion. 

Ecosystem Services 

Soil formation 

Recreation 

Nutrient cycling 

Water regulation and supply 

Climate regulation (temperature and precipitation) 

Habitat 

Flood and storm protection 

Food and raw materials production 

Genetic resources 

Atmospheric gas balance 

Pollination 

All other services 

Total value of ecosystem services 

Value (trillion US$) 

17.1 

3.0 

2.3 

2.3 

1.8 

1.4 

1.1 

0.8 

0.8 

0.7 

0.4 

1.6 

33.3 

Source: Costanza, R. et al. 1997. The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital, Nature, Vol. 387, Table 2, p. 256: 

http://www.uvm.edu/giee/publications/Nature_Paper.pdf. The U.S. $33 trillion calculation is a synthesis of results from more than 100 published 

studies using a variety of different valuation methods. In synthesizing these results, the team looked at the value of 17 categories of services in 

each of 16 types of ecosystems. They calculated an average dollar value per hectare for each type of service in each ecosystem, then multiplied 

that dollar value by the total area that each ecosystem type occupies on the globe. As of August 2002, Bamford, Bruner, Cooper, Costanza in 

Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature, Science, Vol. 297 update these figures and estimate that the aggregated annual value of nature’s 

services lie in the range of $18 to $61 trillion with an average of $38 trillion. 

NONMATERIAL VALUES OF BIODIVERSITY 

Biodiversity also has many nonmaterial values—the spiritual, aesthetic, educational, recreational, 

historical, and scientific benefits that people derive from the natural world and its resources. The value 

that people place on conserving biodiversity for future generations is also a nonmaterial value. 

The diversity of life constitutes a unique resource for current and future generations. Genes from wild 

species help maintain the vigor of many of our crops. The extinction of each additional species brings the 

irreversible loss of unique genetic information, which could have contributed to the development of 

material benefits from biodiversity such as medicines, foods, and other valuable biotechnologies. When 

we overexploit living resources, we threaten our own survival and the well-being of future generations. 

THE STATE OF BIODIVERSITY 

Biological diversity—genetic diversity within species, species diversity, and diversity of ecosystems and 

ecological processes—is threatened and declining precipitously due to human activities. 

Most concern about biodiversity loss has focused on the extinction of species. Nobody knows how many 

species there are on Earth or how fast they are disappearing. Fewer than 2 million species have been 

cataloged and estimates of the total vary wildly, ranging from 7 million to as many as 80 million species 

(Hawksworth and Kalin-Arroyo, 1995). The loss of species, whether due to human activities or natural 

processes, is called extinction. Species extinction is known to occur naturally at “background” or “normal” 

rates. The current rates of extinction, mainly due to human activities, is up to 1,000 time greater than 

background rates typical over the planet’s history, and the projected future extinction rate is more than 10 

times higher than the current rate, according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Ecosystems and 

Human Well-being: Synthesis, 2005: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/products.aspx). This rate 

could result in a loss of 2 to 25 percent of all species (Heywood and Watson, 1995). This level of species 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 13 
loss, and the breakdown of ecosystems and ecological processes that could result, has worrisome 

implications for human well-being. 

Between 10% and 50% of species are threatened with extinction. For example: 

•	 Twenty-four percent of the world's mammal species are now facing a high risk of extinction. (IUCN 

Species Information Service, 2000). 

•	 Twelve percent of the world's 9,500 species of birds are at risk of extinction in the next 100 years. 

Another 600 to 900 species are close to being added to the threatened list (Smith et al., 1993). 

•	 One-fourth of all reptiles and one-third of all amphibians are listed as threatened with extinction; 

reptiles and amphibians are often considered indicators of the overall health of ecosystems. 

•	 Fifty percent of fishes (mainly freshwater) assessed are listed as threatened (Worldwatch Institute, 

2003). 

•	 Many insects, which play essential roles as decomposers and pollinators, are threatened: between 

100,000 and 500,000 species of insects are projected to become extinct in the next 300 years, a rate 

that equals losing 7 to 30 species per week (Mawdsley and Stork, 1995). 

•	 Approximately 10 percent of the world's approximately100,000 known tree species are threatened 

with extinction. About 1,000 species are believed to be critically endangered, with some species 

known only from one or a handful of individuals. Less than a quarter of these threatened tree species 

currently benefit from any kind of conservation measures (Oldfield, et al., 1998). 

Ecosystems and habitats are also threatened and are being lost at alarming levels: 

•	 More than two-thirds of the area of 2 of the world’s 14 major terrestrial biomes and more than half of 

the area of 4 other biomes had been converted, primarily to agriculture, by 1990 (Millennium 

Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). 

•	 One-fifth of all tropical rain forest cover was lost between 1960 and 1990, according to the World 

Resources Institute (WRI). 

•	 Fifty percent of the world’s wetlands habitat has been destroyed over the past 100 years (WRI, 2003). 

•	 The world's coastal mangroves, a vital nursery ground for countless species, are also at risk; 50 

percent have already been cleared (WRI, 2000-2001). 

•	 Approximately 20% of the world’s coral reefs were lost and an additional 20% degraded in the last 

several decades of the twentieth century (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). 

Finally, the loss of species and ecosystems is leading to an unprecedented loss of valuable ecosystem 

services: 

•	 Approximately 60% (15 out of 24) of the ecosystem services examined during the Millennium 

Ecosystem Assessment are being degraded or used unsustainably, including air purification, climate 

regulation, provision of clean water, pest and pathogen regulation, and pollination (Millennium 

Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). 

•	 There have been large-scale changes in nutrient cycles in recent decades, mainly due to additional 

inputs from fertilizers, livestock waste, human waste, and biomass burning. Freshwater and coastal 

ecosystems have been increasingly degraded by these excess nutrients (Millennium Ecosystem 

Assessment, 2005). 

14 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY 

The main direct threats to biodiversity include: 

•	 Conversion of natural habitat to cropland, urban areas, or other human-dominated ecosystems; 

•	 Overexploitation or overharvesting of valuable species; 

•	 Introduced nonnative species, including invasive species and introduced pests and diseases; 

•	 Pollution of land, water, and air; and 

•	 Macro-environmental change, such as climate change, desertification, or disruption of natural 

disturbance regimes (such as floods or fires). 

Of these threats, habitat loss is considered the most critical in many areas. The IUCN reports that habitat 

loss and degradation affects 89 percent of all threatened birds, 83 percent of mammals, and 91 percent of 

threatened plants assessed. Human activities have transformed the Earth and its ecosystems and 

ecological processes. For example: 

•	 Approximately one-half of the land on Earth has been transformed for human use: around 11 percent 

each for farming and forestry; 26 percent for pasture; and at least another 2 to 3 percent for housing, 

industry, services, and transport (FAOSTAT). 

•	 The area used for growing crops has increased almost sixfold since 1700, mainly at the expense of 

forests and woodland (Turner et al., 1990). 

•	 Humans use more than half of the easily accessible freshwater and have regulated the flow of around 

two-thirds of all rivers on Earth, creating artificial lakes and altering the ecology of existing lakes and 

estuaries (Vitousek et al., 1997). 

•	 Through fossil fuel burning and fertilizer application, humans have altered the natural cycles of 

carbon and nitrogen. The amount of nitrogen entering the cycle has more than doubled over the last 

century, and humans now contribute 50 percent more to the nitrogen cycle than all natural sources 

combined. The excess is leading to the impoverishment of forest soils and forest death, and at sea to 

the development of toxic algal blooms and expanding “dead” zones devoid of oxygen (Moffat, 1998). 

•	 By burning fossil fuels in which carbon was locked up hundreds of millions of years ago, we have 

increased the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere by 30 percent over preindustrial levels. We 

have boosted methane content by 145 percent over natural levels (WRI, 1998). 

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 15

•	 African Wildlife Foundation. African Heartlands Program: http://www.awf.org/heartlands/ 

•	 Conservation International. Biodiversity Hotspots: 

http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/hotspotsScience/ 

•	 The Nature Conservancy: http://www.nature.org/wherewework/ 

•	 Wildlife Conservation Society. Living Landscapes: http://wcslivinglandscapes.com/where 

•	 World Wildlife Fund. Global 200 Ecoregions: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions/g200.cfm 

II. CONSERVATION PLANNING 

3.0 Issues of Scale
 

4.0 Involving Stakeholders
 

5.0 Analyzing Conservation Opportunities and Threats
 

6.0 Choosing Conservation Priorities
 

7.0 Designing Activities
 

8.0 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Managing Adaptively
 

9.0 Financing Conservation 
 

SAFIA AGGARWAL, ARD, INC. 

USAID support for community participation in forest and coastal resources management has improved the 

conservation of ecosystems while providing increased community livelihood options in the Philippines. 
CONSERVATION PLANNING 

Conservation planning and implementation is not linear, but rather cyclical and iterative. It is a strategic 

process of setting priorities and articulating specific goals, identifying important threats and opportunities, 

selecting appropriate activities that address these threats and opportunities, and developing systems to 

monitor impacts in a way that continually informs and improves program management. Figure 4 

illustrates key aspects of conservation planning, as well as the iterative nature of the process involved. In 

the separate chapters that follow, critical aspects of conservation planning are discussed. 

FIGURE 4. THE CONSERVATION PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION CYCLE 

A robust and logical planning process is a key element of any good biodiversity conservation program. 

The key questions in each chapter provide guidance on what critical issues should be considered in 

planning and implementing biodiversity conservation activities, as they flag important principles of 

effective conservation. The intention is to provide guidance on how to identify gaps or weaknesses (as 

well as strengths) in proposed biodiversity conservation activities being funded by USAID and 

implemented by its partners in the field. This section is not a how to for designing and implementing 

conservation programs, as USAID’s partners generally provide this technical expertise. However, the 

basic principles of strategic conservation planning and design presented here are intended to help USAID 

staff critically review conservation proposals and more effectively manage conservation programs. 

18 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
3.0 ISSUES OF SCALE 
 

KEY QUESTIONS 

Why are issues of scale so important for biodiversity conservation planning? 

What is the right balance between planning and action when planning at large scales? 

How do protected areas fit within large scale conservation? 

Conservation practitioners are increasingly recognizing that the most effective scale for planning 

conservation activities is large—at the scale of entire ecosystems, “ecoregions,” or ecologically 

functioning landscapes or seascapes. The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has 

adopted an “ecosystem approach” as its strategic framework, see below for Web link). An ecoregional, 

ecosystem-based, or landscape approach to biodiversity conservation aims to conserve the full range of 

species, natural habitats, and ecological processes of a large area, while taking into account relevant 

cultural, political, and economic considerations. Such an approach requires partnerships among diverse 

stakeholders, including communities, local and national governments, nongovernmental organizations, 

academia, and the private sector. 

This “scaled-up” approach to conservation also tends to look across longer temporal scales, beyond 

traditional project funding cycles. As such, it has the potential to address the broader social, economic, 

and policy factors that are essential to long-term success but are often difficult to address when only 

working at smaller scales over shorter time frames. 

An ecoregional or ecosystem-level approach to conservation provides: 

•	 An ecologically appropriate scale to conserve the full suite of biodiversity and ecological functions; 

•	 A geographic scale that enables a more relevant assessment of the social, political, and economic 

context of the threats to biodiversity and opportunities to mitigate them; 

•	 A framework to align conservation priorities identified at the community scale with national, 

regional, and global conservation priorities; 

•	 Better links between field-based activities and policy development; 

•	 A framework for building partnerships required by the complexity of conservation; and 

•	 A framework for intersectoral coordination and cooperation. 

Projects or activities that support conservation at the ecoregional scale can be of various kinds (these are 

discussed in Section III of this Guide, Conservation Activities): 

•	 They can have a specific geographic focus, and include working at particular sites. 

•	 They can have a policy focus, working to create an appropriate enabling environment for achieving 

compatible conservation and sustainable development goals. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 19 
•	 They can have an economic focus, attempting to strengthen financial incentives for conservation and 

the sustainable use of natural resources. 

•	 They can have an information and communication focus, working to educate decision makers, 

managers, communities, corporations, and the public as a whole about the interdependence of 

conservation and sustainable development. 

•	 They can have a cross-sectoral coordination focus, working to ensure that decisions affecting one 

sector (e.g., agriculture, transportation, health, energy, industry, tourism) are coordinated and 

compatible with the need to conserve biological diversity as the foundation for sustainable 

development. 

Conservation efforts supported by USAID often focus on particular sites within a larger conservation 

landscape, which are relatively small and circumscribed areas of natural habitat, whether land or water. 

The term “landscape” or “seascape” is more often used to describe a larger area that includes a mosaic of 

various habitats and land uses. “Site” is not an ecological term, however, and some conservation 

organizations now use the term to refer to the area in which a project works, regardless of size. 

KEY QUESTIONS 

•	 Why are issues of scale so important for biodiversity conservation planning? 

Important ecological functions, such as migrations and hydrological cycling, tend to occur over 

relatively large geographic areas and are affected by factors that cross geopolitical boundaries. Some 

large, mobile animals—including mammals, birds, and fish—may undergo seasonal or annual 

migrations, or require large home ranges to maintain viable populations. Entire ecosystems and 

ecoregions are generally too big to be able to work everywhere, however, so focusing conservation 

activities at specific sites within these larger areas is necessary for success. Through a strategic 

conservation planning process, a complementary suite of policy and site-based activities at relevant 

local, national, or international scales can be identified in support of specific biodiversity 

conservation goals. 

•	 What is the right balance between planning and action when planning at large scales? 

Conservation planning with diverse stakeholders is a complex process that can take considerable 

time. While planning is underway, immediate actions often are needed. Delays in implementation 

may result in irreversible loss of biodiversity—through the extinction of a species or damage to a 

valuable ecological process that may be difficult to restore. The best science available, as well as a 

solid assessment of threats, should indicate these urgent actions. However, over the long term, careful 

and efficient analysis of options for conservation action (including their costs and benefits) are an 

essential part of effective conservation planning and ideally will mitigate the need for many urgent 

conservation actions in the future. 

•	 How do protected areas fit within large-scale conservation? 

Protected areas are often an important foundation for conserving biodiversity. They rarely conserve 

all of its elements, however. Protected areas are affected by various forces operating outside of their 

boundaries, so some conservation actions must be aimed at these larger-scale factors. Protected areas 

are only part of an integrated strategy for biodiversity conservation. All protected area systems, 

whether terrestrial or marine, are more effective when embedded within a larger, integrated 

framework of environmental governance and sustainable economies. 

20 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 21 

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

Abell, Robin, Michele Thieme, and Bernhard Lehner. n.d. Ecoregion Conservation for Freshwater 

Systems, With a Focus on Large Rivers. Conservation Science Program. World Wildlife Fund: 

http://www.lars2.org/unedited papers/unedited paper/Abell.pdf

African Wildlife Foundation. 2004: African Heartland Program: http://www.awf.org/heartlands

Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative. 1998. Guidance for Ecoregion-based Conservation: Principles, 

Essential Elements, and General Approach: http://www.carpathians.org/publications.htm

Communication Partnership for Science and Sea (COMPASS). Ecosystem-Based Management 

(consensus statement on marine ecosystem-based management): http://compassonline.org/?q=EBM

Convention on Biological Diversity. Decision VII/11, “Ecosystem Approach:” 

http://www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.aspx?m=COP-07&id=7748&lg=0

Convention on Biological Diversity. 2004. The Ecosystem Approach: CBD Guidelines: 

http://www.biodiv.org/doc/publications/ea-text-en.pdf

Groves, Craig et al. 2000. Designing a Geography of Hope: A Practitioner’s Handbook to 

Ecoregional Conservation Planning. The Nature Conservancy: 

http://www.conserveonline.org/2000/11/b/GOH2-v1;internal&action=buildframes.action

Low, Greg. July 2003. Landscape-Scale Conservation: A Practitioner’s Guide. The Nature 

Conservancy: 

http://www.conserveonline.org/2003/09/l/en/Landscape Practicitioners Handbook July03NEW.pdf

The Nature Conservancy. 2004. How We Work: Conservation By Design: Our Approach: 

http://nature.org/aboutus/howwework/about/art5720.html

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS): http://ecosystems.fws.gov/

Wildlife Conservation Society. 2004. Living Landscapes Program Tools: 

http://wcslivinglandscapes.com/conservation

World Conservation Union. 2004. Ecosystem Management: http://www.iucn.org/themes/cem

World Conservation Union. 2000. Ecosystem Management—Lessons from Around the World: A 

Guide for Development and Conservation Practitioners: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/wetlands/ecosystemmanagement.html

World Resources Institute. 2000. What Is An Ecosystem Approach? 

http://pubs.wri.org/pubs content text.cfm?ContentID=226

World Wildlife Fund. 2002. Sharing Across Boundaries Issue 5: Ecoregion Conservation Plans: 

http://www.panda.org/downloads/ecoregions/sab5final.pdf

World Wildlife Fund. July 2003. A Portfolio of Stories: Ecoregion Conservation: 

http://www.panda.org/downloads/ecoregions/portfolioofstories.pdf
BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
 

If a specific watershed activity will be attributed to the biodiversity earmark, USAID managers and staff should 

first consult the USAID and Biodiversity Conservation chapter of this Guide, to make sure that all minimum 

criteria are met. Beyond these, the following guiding questions can help assess when it is and is not 

appropriate to select the watershed landscape unit as a site for biodiversity conservation activity: 

Is the targeted area a predominantly intact, functioning watershed or river basin that provides 

significant biodiversity values or ecosystem services? The watershed under consideration must be in 

sufficiently intact condition to possess recognized biodiversity values or provide significant ecosystem 

services. Selecting a watershed as the landscape unit may be especially appropriate if valued species, habitats, 

or the ecosystem type of concern are directly linked to the health of the freshwater aquatic or coastal 

features of the landscape (e.g., endangered fish species, wetland, estuarine habitats, etc.). Developing a 

conservation program at the watershed or river-basin scale also permits a focus on ecosystem wide 

processes and the life sustaining services they provide to humans as well as other species. In fact, the 

maintenance of ecosystem services is among the most common rationales for choosing a watershed 

landscape unit over some other ecosystem type, since so many critical functions are provided by intact 

hydrologic systems, for example: water supply provision, water quality protection from nutrients and 

sediments and water purification, freshwater flow regulation, wildlife habitat, chemical and nutrient cycling, 

protection from extreme events, and nursery functions for aquatic and marine productivity. 

Are the biodiversity values or ecosystem services of the watershed of significant local, national, 

or international importance? The values of the intact watershed should be recognized as important, at 

least by the governments and citizens of the affected region itself, but preferably at the national or 

international level as well. While there is no specific minimum spatial area or stream size requirement for 

the watershed under consideration, interventions in watersheds, subwatersheds, or coastal/estuarine zones 

smaller than the entire river basin scale must either contain significant biodiversity values in their own right 

(e.g., estuaries, wetlands), or have significant influence on the health of the entire basin system (e.g., pristine 

upper watersheds). 

22 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 23 

4.0 INVOLVING 

 STAKEHOLDERS 

The conservation of biodiversity requires the commitment and agreement of key stakeholders, and 

benefits from the formation of partnerships among them. Stakeholders may include individuals, groups, 

and organizations—whether private, public, or government entities—with an interest in the use and 

management of some aspect of biodiversity in a given place. 

IDENTIFYING KEY STAKEHOLDERS 

Any conservation planning process 

must include techniques for 

identifying stakeholders and their 

interests. Ideally, key stakeholders 

should be involved throughout the 

planning and implementation 

process. 

Identifying stakeholders involves 

figuring out who is (or was) using, 

affecting, or is affected by the 

biodiversity of a place. Not all 

stakeholders have an equal claim 

over that biodiversity, or an equal 

interest in the conservation of any 

particular element of it. The strength 

of the claim and degree of interest 

depend on such things as geographic proximity, dependence for livelihood, historical association, 

recognized rights, economic interest, and institutional mandate. References at the end of this chapter 

describe techniques for identifying and involving stakeholders. 

TYPES OF PARTICIPATION 

Identifying key stakeholders and their interests is not an assurance that they can or will participate in 

conservation activities. Conservation project managers must actively encourage and facilitate stakeholder 

participation throughout the cycle of conservation planning and implementation. The following 

subsection describes a spectrum of levels of participation. In general, the more active the stakeholders, the 

KEY QUESTIONS 

Why is stakeholder participation important in conservation planning? 

What is the right level and kind of stakeholder participation? 

CRAIG R. SHOLLEY, AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION.

USAID currently works in Rwanda, which is home to highly 

biodiverse ecosystems (habitat for the Mountain Gorilla), and has 

some of the highest human population density in the world. 
better. The participation of key stakeholders helps to ensure that decisions reflect their interests, and 

makes it more likely that they will support the process. All stakeholders should understand their roles and 

responsibilities in the conservation planning process. 

Certain stakeholders may be unable or unwilling to become involved and support a given activity or 

program. In these cases, conflict resolution techniques are a critical component of the conservation 

planning process. Involving the key stakeholders, including marginalized groups such as women and 

indigenous peoples (see Women and Biodiversity box on page 25), will reduce conflicts and ensure that 

activities are appropriate for the local social and natural environments. 

A SPECTRUM OF STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION 

Stakeholders can participate in conservation planning at many levels. Participation is not a simple, unitary 

concept, but rather a continuum from “passive” to “active.” Activities and programs that have been called 

participatory span a wide range, from local people simply providing information to outsiders, who then 

design projects, increasingly more active forms such as co-management of externally initiated projects, to 

community-initiated “self-mobilization.” One way of describing the continuum of participation is given 

below (Pretty, 1995): 

•	 Self-mobilization. Stakeholders participate by making decisions taking the initiative independently of 

external institutions. They receive funding and technical advice from outside agencies, but retain 

control over the process. Self-mobilization can spread if governments and NGOs provide an enabling 

framework of support. 

•	 Interactive. People participate in joint analysis, development of action plans, joint decision making, 

and formation or strengthening of local institutions. 

•	 Functional. Participation is seen by external agencies as a means to achieve project goals, especially 

reducing costs or conflicts. People may participate by forming groups to meet objectives determined 

by the project. Such involvement may be interactive and involve shared decision making, but often 

occurs after major decisions have already been made by external agents. 

•	 For material incentives. People participate by contributing resources (e.g., labor in return for food, 

cash, or other material incentives). Farmers may provide the fields and labor, but are involved in 

neither experimentation nor the process of learning. It is common to see this called “participation,” 

yet people have no stake in continuing the activities when the direct material incentives come from 

the outside end. 

•	 Consultation. People participate by being consulted and by answering questions. External agents 

define the problems and information-gathering processes, and control the analysis. Such a 

consultative process does not concede a share in decision making. 

•	 Passive. People participate by being told what has been decided or has already happened. It involves 

unilateral announcements by outside project management without listening to people’s responses. 

24 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
WOMEN AND BIODIVERSITY 

Worldwide, there are important differences in how women and men use, manage, and conserve biological
 

resources. Gender planning should integrate the understanding of gender based differences and their implications
 

for natural resources management and biodiversity conservation into conservation programs and policies. By
 

giving women greater access to local, national, and international institutions engaged in biodiversity decision
 

making, USAID can ensure the social acceptability and sustainability of its conservation and management efforts.
 

The following are ways to incorporate gender explicitly into projects: 
 

Recognize women's role in the management of biodiversity. As providers of family food, water, fuel, 

medicine, clothing, income, and household goods, women depend on healthy and diverse ecosystems. They 

are often rich sources of knowledge about uses and patterns of local biodiversity. 

Evaluate women's and men's unique use and management of biological resources (both formal and informal) 

and address the diversity of uses in consultation with women and men. Background information and data 

collected throughout the activity should be gender disaggregated. 

Seek input from women by consulting with women's organizations or creating opportunities to meet with 

women separately from men. Women may not feel comfortable speaking up in the presence of men. Ensure 

equal participation of women in all levels of biodiversity activities—from planning to implementation to 

decision making. Address barriers to women's full participation such as language, literacy, access to resources 

or credit, and time constraints. 

Support women's access to and ownership of land and resources. Women's use and management of 

biological resources often takes place on marginal land and common areas far from villages. 

Recognize the constraints that economic, family, and community responsibilities may place on women's time. 

Build in flexibility to work around women's schedules, and design biodiversity conservation activities that save 

time for women rather than fill it. 

Encourage USAID partners to emphasize best practice norms, such as nondiscrimination and fair
 

compensation for women.
 

Work with USAID partners to expand the role of women in the private sector. 

DEALING WITH CONFLICTS 

In any situation where diverse stakeholders are involved in using or managing natural resources, disputes are 

almost certain to occur. To enable long-term stakeholder cooperation, managers of conservation activities 

must be able to address conflicts constructively. Conflict management and good communication skills are 

essential to maintaining the participation of stakeholders and their commitment to conservation priorities. 

Possible methods for resolving disputes and conflicts include the following: 

•	 Meetings or roundtable discussions can bring opposing stakeholder groups together to discuss issues 

of mutual interest. 

•	 Joint fact-finding activities can get stakeholders working together to investigate issues about which 

there are factual or scientific disagreements. 

•	 Training in negotiation, creative problem solving, and dispute resolution techniques can help build the 

capacity of stakeholders to deal with and resolve potential conflicts. 

•	 Mediation by a third party (sometimes professionally trained for this role) can facilitate 

communication among stakeholders who have reached an impasse. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 25 
KEY QUESTIONS 

•	 Why is stakeholder participation important in conservation planning? 

Involving key stakeholders in the conservation planning process can allow for a more complete 

understanding of biodiversity based on local, practical knowledge of ecological systems and the 

forces influencing them, as well as traditional management and use practices. Stakeholder 

participation is important for establishing trust, identifying partnership opportunities, strengthening an 

advocacy base for conservation, and/or averting and managing conflicts before they threaten the 

stability of activities. 

It is possible that issues of equity and transparency can be overlooked in conservation planning when 

stakeholder participation is limited. When stakeholders feel that conservation plans are not developed 

in a transparent way, or that resulting strategies limit equitable access to the benefits of biodiversity 

(or alternatively pose unequal burdens for the management of biodiversity), they are unlikely to 

support activities. 

•	 What is the right level and kind of stakeholder participation? 

It is both impossible and not strategic to attempt to involve all relevant stakeholders in all aspects of 

conservation planning. It is important to have a plan for knowing who to engage, when to engage 

them, and how to do so. The goal should be to ensure the greatest amount of transparency and 

involvement that is possible while producing a program of activities that enjoys broad support and has 

a high likelihood of success. Mechanisms for choosing among alternatives and making decisions 

should be transparent and open to multiple stakeholder groups. In addition, specific mechanisms for 

communicating and sharing information with relevant groups and individuals should be built into the 

planning process. 

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

26 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 

•	 Borrini-Feyerabend, G., ed. 1997. Beyond Fences: Seeking Social Sustainability in Conservation. 

Gland, Switzerland: IUCN: http://www.iucn.org/themes/spg/Files/beyond fences/beyond fences.html 

•	 Byers, Bruce. 2000. Understanding and Influencing Behaviors: A Guide. Biodiversity Support 

Program: http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/bsp/behaviors eng/behaviorsguide eng.pdf 

•	 Colchester, Marcus. 2001. Global Policies and Projects in Asia—Indigenous Peoples and Biodiversity 

Conservation, Biodiversity Support Program (USAID-funded consortium of World Wildlife Fund, 

The Nature Conservancy and World Resources Institute): 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/asia/marcus/marcus_A.html 

•	 Margoluis, R., C. Hochman, K. Brandon, and N. Salafsky. 2000. In Good Company—Effective 

Alliances for Conservation, Biodiversity Support Program: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/aam/good/Good Co-00.pdf 

•	 Pretty, J.N. 1995. Participatory Learning For Sustainable Agriculture. World Development, Vol. 23, 

No. 8, pp. 1247-1260. 

•	 Sahai, Suman. TRIPs and biodiversity: a gender perspective: 

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what we do/resources/downloads/gdt sahai.pdf 

•	 USAID. Participatory Development: http://www.usaid.gov/about/part devel 
•	 Weber, R., J. Butler, and P. Larson. 2000. Indigenous Peoples and Conservation Organizations— 

Experiences in Collaboration, Biodiversity Support Program: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/africa/indigenous conservation/indigenous conservati 

on.pdf 

•	 World Bank. Participation and Civic Engagement: 

http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/sdvext.nsf/66ParentDoc/ParticipationandCivicEngagement?Ope 

ndocument 

•	 World Conservation Union. Gender and Environment: www.genderandenvironment.org 

•	 World Wildlife Fund. 2000. Stakeholder Collaboration: Building Bridges for Conservation. 2000. 

Washington, DC: WWF-US: http://www.panda.org/downloads/ecoregions/collaboration.pdf 

•	 World Wildlife Fund. 2001. Sharing Across Boundaries, Issue 2: Gender and Ecoregion 

Conservation: http://www.panda.org/downloads/ecoregions/sabgender.pdf 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 27 
5.0 ANALYZING 

CONSERVATION THREATS 

AND OPPORTUNITIES 

THREATS-BASED CONSERVATION 

Direct threats to a particular element of biodiversity must be mitigated in order to conserve that 

component of biodiversity, whether it is a species, ecological process, or whole ecosystem. A threatsbased approach to conservation emphasizes the development of a logical plan for determining what the 

threats are, which threats will be addressed, and how. The plan must clearly identify the linkages between 

threats and proposed activities. 

Threats must be described in specific terms, their effects on conservation priorities must be understood, 

and their causes or sources must be identified. Although a threats-based approach emphasizes direct 

threats, this does not mean that no attention should be paid to root causes or indirect threats. To fully 

understand a threat, the causal chain from root cause to direct threat must be understood to the extent 

possible. This information is critical in designing effective interventions, and in communicating the 

rationale behind the program design. 

Key aspects to a threats-based approach to conservation include: 

•	 Direct threats must be mitigated in order to achieve effective biodiversity conservation. 

•	 Addressing all threats is impossible, so threats and actions must be prioritized. 

•	 Effective interventions require an understanding of the context and root causes of the direct threats. 

Root causes, where appropriate and feasible, should be addressed through interventions. 

•	 Threats analysis must be an iterative process, serving as the foundation for selecting priorities and 

setting targets, but also requiring effective monitoring over time to inform good program 

management. 

A threats-based approach is a proactive approach to conservation. This approach ensures that important 

challenges that are affecting biodiversity are addressed and should also point to critical opportunities to 

impart change. Good threats analyses look across temporal scales, disentangling past influences while 

anticipating and planning for future threats and opportunities. 

IDENTIFYING THREATS 

Threats analysis is an iterative process tied into good program management, with the analysis often 

refined over time. For example, when an area of biological importance is selected as the basis for a 

conservation program, a biodiversity threats assessment is an important early input into the setting of 

priorities. However, as priorities are established, it may be appropriate to do more detailed or refined 

threats assessments to better target specific activities. As activities are implemented, monitoring of threats 

28 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
over time is an important adaptive management process that can inform mid-course corrections for the 

program to maximize impacts and achievements. 

An important first step in a threats analysis is to identify all potential threats, their magnitude and scale, 

and rank them in some order based on importance and feasibility of intervention. Conservation targets or 

goals are often selected based on threat rankings (see next chapter on Choosing Conservation Priorities). 

Threats can be identified through existing information, new studies, and by involving stakeholders in the 

process. By identifying threats through both a review of the literature and a participatory process, the best 

information is brought to the table and stakeholders can share a common understanding of the key threats. 

The main direct threats to biodiversity include: 

•	 Conversion of natural habitat to 

cropland, urban areas, or other 

human-dominated ecosystems; 

•	 Overexploitation or overharvesting 

of valuable species; 

•	 Introduced nonnative species, 

including invasive species and 

introduced pests and diseases; 

•	 Pollution of land, water, and air; 

and 

•	 Macro-environmental change, such 

as climate change, desertification, 

or disruption of natural disturbance 

regimes (such as floods or fires). 

Examples of root causes of threats to biodiversity include: 

•	 Inequality and poverty; 

•	 Demographic change, migration, and conflict; 

•	 Public policies and structures; 

•	 Global and local market forces; and 

•	 Rapid social (including public health crises) and cultural change. 

SAFIA AGGARWAL, ARD, INC. 

Deforestation for highly lucrative soy farming in San Rafael forest 

region of Paraguay. 

Comprehensive threats-based biodiversity conservation requires an integrated, multidisciplinary approach 

to understand both the social and biological processes and their dynamics at an ecoregional scale. The 

references at the end of this chapter provide examples of how threats are identified in practice by some of 

the conservation organizations who are partners in USAID’s Global Conservation Program. The 

references also explain large-scale, systemic causes of threats to biodiversity. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 29 
PRIORITIZING THREATS 

Threats can be prioritized according to several factors, including: 

•	 Urgency of addressing the threat, 

•	 Probability of success in mitigating the threat, 

•	 Area affected by the threat, 

•	 Feasibility of addressing the threat (e.g., culturally, politically, economically), and 

•	 Level of agreement among stakeholders about the threat. 

It is not clear in all cases whether a higher priority be given to the situations where biodiversity is under 

the greatest threat, or the least. For example, if the conservation priority is to conserve an example of a 

unique forest type, some conservationists would give the highest priority to working in remote areas with 

few people, where the costs of management and enforcement are now low. Others conservationists argue 

that such remote areas are “self-protecting” in the short term. They argue that conservation investments 

are needed most urgently where there are now the greatest threats of conversion of natural areas to 

human-dominated ones—typically in areas much closer to roads, cities, and farms. Or, if the conservation 

target is a single species, some conservationists argue that the massive investment that may be needed to 

conserve the last few individuals of a species on the brink of extinction takes money away from activities 

on behalf of threatened species that may have a better chance of long-term survival than a species already 

on the brink. There are no right or wrong answers in such debates, but the tradeoffs among urgency, cost, 

and probability of success need to be considered carefully. USAID has funded both kinds of conservation 

activities—those focusing on immediate, urgent threats, and those which address long-term, future threats 

to biodiversity. 

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

30 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 

•	 Margoluis, Richard, and Nick Salafsky. 2001. Is Our Project Succeeding? A Guide to Threat 

Reduction Assessment for Conservation: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/aam/threat/tra.pdf 

•	 The Nature Conservancy. 2004. How We Work: Conservation By Design: Our Approach: 

http://nature.org/aboutus/howwework/about/art5720.html 

•	 World Wildlife Fund. Root Causes of Biodiversity Loss: 

http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/policy/macro_economics/root_causes/index.cfm 

•	 World Wildlife Fund. 2000. Macroeconomics for Sustainable Development Program Office: 

http://www.panda.org/resources/programmes/mpo/rootcauses/root_pub.htm 
6.0 CHOOSING 

CONSERVATION 

PRIORITIES 

KEY QUESTION 

With so many different approaches to setting conservation priorities, what is the key to using any one 

successfully? 

This chapter summarizes some general principles for setting conservation priorities of all kinds, whether 

those are the types of activities chosen to address threats, the geographic scale and sites at which to work, 

or the elements of biodiversity to target. For examples of specific approaches and methods that are being 

used by U.S. government, international agencies, and conservation NGOs, see the Web-based references 

at the end of the chapter. 

AGREEMENT ABOUT CONSERVATION PRIORITIES 

Conservation priorities of all kinds should be set through a participatory process that involves wellinformed key stakeholders. A transparent process that is based on the best science available, coupled with 

a realistic assessment of the potential tradeoffs associated with different sets of priorities, has the greatest 

potential for producing a set of goals and associated activities that enjoy broad stakeholder support. 

Scientific analysis of the status and threats to biodiversity is a critical starting point for setting 

conservation goals and targets. However, achieving agreement on specific goals and targets among a 

broad suite of stakeholders is based on much more than just science. 

Information stemming from the Foreign Assistance Act’s Section 118 and 119 (see Chapter 28, U.S. 

Legislation) reviews, analysis, and country strategic plans may be useful background for choosing 

conservation priorities as well as selecting the scale and sites at which to work (See Chapter 3, Issues of 

Scale). They can also help to identify threats (see Chapter 5, Analyzing Conservation Threats and 

Opportunities), stakeholders, and potential partners (see Chapter 4, Involving Stakeholders). Because of 

their usefulness in planning biodiversity conservation activities (and activities related to agriculture, 

democracy and governance, conflict), these reviews and related information are an important element of 

USAID priority setting for biodiversity conservation at the country and USAID mission level. 

The Conference of Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), states as its first principle 

for ecosystem conservation that: 

“The objectives of management of land, water, and living resources are a matter of societal 

choice...Different sectors of society view ecosystems in terms of their own economic, cultural 

and societal needs. Indigenous peoples and other local communities living on the land are 

important stakeholders and their rights and interests should be recognized. Ultimately, all 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 31 
HANNAH FAIRBANK, USAID/EGAT/NRM/B, 2000. 

Community based environmental education 

in the Philippines (Rebecca Timonel and 

fruit bat, Rene). 

ecosystems should be managed for the benefit of humans—whether that benefit is consumptive 

or nonconsumptive” (http://www.biodiv.org/doc/ref/ecs-principles-draft.pdf). 

Arriving at such “societal choices” regarding which 

elements of biodiversity to emphasize requires that key 

stakeholders, often with very different values and interests 

(some of which may not prioritize biodiversity 

conservation), work together to set priorities. For example, 

a conservation organization may want to preserve and 

connect patches of endangered forest, whereas a local 

community living in or near the area may be more 

interested in raising household incomes. Identifying and 

articulating these different interests of key stakeholders is 

an important early step in priority setting. In this way, 

opportunities that achieve multiple objectives can be 

identified. Without such explicit communication of interests 

and underlying value systems early on, conflicts are likely 

to emerge later, weakening the conservation program. 

Selecting among alternative conservation priorities is a 

negotiation process requiring a solid understanding of 

potential tradeoffs. It often involves compromises, but ideally should seek “win-win” solutions in which 

each stakeholder benefits without having to give up the things that are most important to them. As with the 

case above, the exact amount of forest to be protected, managed, and/or rehabilitated will likely be 

determined through the development of a forest zoning system that includes both strictly protected areas of 

critical remaining patches of forest as well as multiple use zones that could include ecotourism and other 

conservation enterprises that bring income to local populations. 

Developing a vision of a future that is both desirable and sustainable can help stakeholders recognize their 

common interests, and go on to develop mutually agreeable strategies for managing biodiversity. The 

references listed at the end of this chapter give examples of how stakeholders can work together to develop 

a common conservation vision. 

WHAT WILL THE PROGRAM CONSERVE? 

Biological diversity includes the variety and variability of genes, species, ecosystems, and ecological 

processes. What elements of biodiversity will a particular project or program conserve, and why? Each of 

the diverse elements of biodiversity can be valuable—for direct material uses such as food and medicines; 

for ecosystem services such as clean water, pollination, or the control of pests; and for nonmaterial uses 

such as recreation and education (see Chapter 2, The State and Importance of Biodiversity). 

In order to maintain the full suite of benefits associated with biodiversity, explicit conservation targets 

need to be established. These explicit targets are not only critical for gauging success over time, but are 

also important to ensure a common understanding among conservation stakeholders. Characteristics of 

effective conservation targets include: 

•	 They are clear, specifying quantitative levels and time frames, when appropriate. 

•	 They are ambitious, and sufficient to ensure ecological stability. 

•	 They cover all relevant elements of biodiversity (species, representation of habitats and ecosystems, 

ecological processes, etc.). 

•	 They are realistic within present constraints and available resources. 

32 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
KEY QUESTIONS 

•	 With so many different approaches to setting conservation priorities, what is the key to using 

any one successfully? 

Conservation NGOs each have their own approaches to setting priorities, determined by the values of 

their members and the scientists on their staffs. Each of these approaches has its specific merits and is 

designed to produce specific conservation outcomes. Many of the international conservation NGOs are 

involved in establishing a set of common standards for conservation planning following basic principles 

of good program design (see Web link for Conservation Measures Partnership below). For any of these 

approaches, it is important to remember that conservation NGOs are one of the many conservation 

stakeholders. The values and priorities of these organizations may differ from other international, 

national, and local stakeholders. As such, the priority-setting process should be transparent and clear 

regarding how these alternative values are reflected in the final priorities that are decided upon. 

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 33 

•	 African Wildlife Foundation: http://www.awf.org/about 

•	 BirdLife International: http://www.birdlife.net/ 

•	 Convention on Biological Diversity: http://www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.asp 

•	 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora: 

http://www.cites.org/ 

•	 Conservation International: 

http://www.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/regions/priorityareas/hotspots.xml and 

http://www.cabs.conservation.org/xp/CABS/home 

•	 Conservation Measures Partnership: http://www.conservationmeasures.org 

•	 Ecological Society of America: http://www.esa.org/ecoservices 

•	 Food and Agriculture Organization: http://www.fao.org/waicent/ois/press_ne/presseng/h8f.htm 

•	 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/ 

•	 The Nature Conservancy: http://nature.org/aboutus/howwework 

•	 United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Man and the Biosphere 

Program (MAB): http://www.unesco.org/mab/brfaq.htm 

•	 U.S. Geological Survey: http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/ 

•	 Wildlife Conservation Society: http://wcs.org/12318 or http://wcs.org/12311 

•	 World Conservation Union Species Survival Commission: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/aboutssc/whatisssc.htm 

•	 World Wildlife Fund: http://worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions.cfm 

•	 World Wildlife Fund. Ecoregion Action Programs: A Guide for Practitioners: 

http://www.panda.org/downloads/ecoregions/guidebookpart1.pdf 
7.0 DESIGNING ACTIVITIES 
 

KEY QUESTIONS 

Why is a threats and opportunities analysis important? 

What are the characteristics of well designed conservation activities? 

DESIGNING ACTIVITIES TO ADDRESS THREATS 

The threats-based approach to conservation seeks to link threats to specific elements of biodiversity with 

conservation actions in a logical and direct way. With conservation targets agreed upon, a careful analysis 

of threats and opportunities should provide some indication of relevant activities that can be undertaken to 

move toward achievement of stated goals. 

Lasting conservation impacts can only be achieved when priority threats are mitigated. Figure 5 shows 

three examples in which the logical links between the threat and the conservation activity are weak, 

suggesting a dubious likelihood of success. In the first two examples, the threats identified are very 

general—probably too general to be of good use in designing targeted conservation interventions. 

FIGURE 5. WEAK LINK BETWEEN THREAT AND ACTIVITY 

(Note: the linkage between threats and their impacts on biodiversity are often not 

linear, however, for simplicity sake they are represented this way) 

In the first case, while poverty may indeed be a root cause of biodiversity loss, a better understanding of 

how poverty is having direct effects on biodiversity is needed to develop appropriate interventions. For 

34 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
example, poor coastal populations may be fishing in or near protected areas in order to meet their 

household food security needs (women in some cases) while also trying to generate cash from the sale of 

fish and other marine products (men in some cases). Both the rate of off-take and the specific techniques 

used to gather resources may be negatively impacting local fish populations. In this case, appropriately 

designed conservation interventions might focus on limiting the rate of off-take, improving the specific 

fishing techniques used by men and/or women, developing non-marine based alternative livelihood 

options, improving the processing of products to generate more cash per unit sold, or some combination 

of the above. 

In the third example in Figure 5, although a logging concession may be a direct threat, the logic linking 

the threat and the activity is weak—in this case, “environmental awareness” in communities, developed 

primarily through radio programs, will probably not be the most effective way to change the behavior of a 

logging company holding a concession to cut timber in a nearby forest. 

Figure 6 provides examples of specific, direct threats to some element of biological diversity, and 

activities logically designed to address the threats. 

FIGURE 6. IMPROVED LINK BETWEEN THREAT AND ACTIVITY 

Please note: while the examples in the above figure are overly simplified, they are intended to highlight 

the point that more specific knowledge on causal linkages and how threats actually impact biodiversity 

are necessary for designing appropriate interventions. If the causal context is understood, it should be 

possible to describe clearly how a proposed intervention will bring about desired changes in the causal 

chain leading to mitigation of threats and achievement of conservation targets and goals. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 35 
For example, in the case of overharvesting of species for the bushmeat trade, the proposed activity is 

based on the assumption that domesticated food animals can be substituted for bushmeat. This may or 

may not be an appropriate activity depending on cultural traditions (men hunting in the forest versus 

farming at home), vocational backgrounds (people may not have the necessary knowledge to raise 

domesticated animals), land tenure issues (the people may not own sufficient land to raise domesticated 

animals), and economic issues (bushmeat may provide more income for less effort), or cultural 

preferences (preference for bushmeat). 

The threats-based approach requires that interventions focus on direct threats. This approach does not 

limit interventions to either direct threats or the site level, however. Ideally, a good understanding of the 

full causal chain from root cause to direct threat should be understood, if possible, and each linkage 

should be considered as a possible point of intervention. 

An unbalanced emphasis on either end of the causal chain—either root causes or direct threats—can 

reduce the effectiveness of conservation programs. For example, too much emphasis on direct threats, 

without sufficient effort to understand and address their root causes, may produce localized conservation 

successes that may not be sustainable. On the other hand, programs that target only root causes and 

indirect threats may take a long time to produce results, and in the meantime, immediate direct threats 

may lead to an irreversible loss of biodiversity at some sites. Ideally, conservation programs should 

simultaneously mitigate direct threats while fostering the enabling conditions for long-term conservation. 

Lastly, while threats analysis is a critical element of good conservation planning, it is not sufficient for 

effective program design. There are other important aspects to be considered when making programmatic 

design decisions. In particular, for any specific conservation activity, it is important to identify who is the 

most appropriate party to implement it. Appropriateness is a factor of established presence in a region, 

historical relationships with relevant stakeholders, technical capacity and skills, additional resources or 

leverage that can be applied, and so on. By asking these types of questions early on in the activity design 

stage it is possible to identify and refine conservation activities to capitalize on the specific value-added 

traits of certain groups. At the same time, necessary actions to strengthen institutional capacities and build 

complementary partnerships can be developed. 

KEY QUESTIONS 

• Why is a threats and opportunities analysis important? 

A thorough understanding of threats helps set realistic conservation goals and targets. A robust threats 

and opportunities analysis identifies the factors that have the potential to either promote or prevent 

achievement of conservation goals. A solid understanding of the causal links between threats and 

their impacts on specific biodiversity elements provides the basis for a rational set of interventions. 

• What are the characteristics of well-designed conservation activities? 

− Responds to identified and prioritized threats, 

− Technically appropriate and based on best practices and lessons learned whenever possible, 

− Closely linked to conservation goals and targets, 

− Well-matched to the strengths of implementing organizations, and 

− Support appropriate partnerships among relevant stakeholder groups. 

36 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
THE BUSHMEAT THREAT 

The overhunting of wildlife for human consumption is a threat to biodiversity across the humid tropics. The hunting of 

wild meat (known as “bushmeat ) has increased in recent years for several reasons, including loss of forests, increases in 

human populations, increased access for hunters to remaining forests as a result of road building and forest fragmentation, 

the use of efficient modern hunting technologies, loss of traditional hunting controls, and increased commercialization of 

hunting. Overhunting of wildlife was first recognized as a problem in West and Central Africa, and is often referred to as 

the “bushmeat crisis.” 

The demand for wild meat stems from two sources. Many people eat wild meat because it is the cheapest and most 

readily available source of meat, and they often shift away from eating it when household income increases or other 

sources of protein become reliably available. In other cases, city dwellers with rising household incomes may consider 

wild meat a delicacy, thereby increasing demand for it. 

Hunting can have significant ecological consequences. It can result in what has been called the Empty Forest Syndrome, 

a forest without large animals. Such forests may suffer dramatic changes in structure and composition, because they may 

lack the animals responsible for pollination and seed dispersal. The loss of some animals and the secondary loss of certain 

plant species may jeopardize the function, stability, and long term survival of these ecosystems and the people dependent 

upon them. 

The use of wild meat can also have human health consequences. Many diseases can jump between game species and 

humans during the hunting, handling, and consumption process. Primates, including humans, are susceptible to many of the 

same diseases, and monkeys and apes may have a role in the spread of new and virulent diseases to humans, including 

Ebola. Logging, mining, and construction of pipelines or power lines open up new areas of forest to commercial hunting, 

increasing the risk that humans will be exposed to new animal-borne diseases. 

Solutions to the bushmeat crisis require an understanding of both the local situation and the broader context both 

direct and root causes. Possible activities for addressing the bushmeat threat include: 

Promoting awareness of the ecological and health implications of overhunting; 

Increasing law enforcement, especially to protect the most critically endangered species; 

Ensuring that hunting does not accompany resource extraction (of timber, minerals or oil, for example) and the road 

building associated with these industries; 

Determining sustainable levels of hunting for species and work with local communities to regulate; and 

Promoting cultivation of domestic livestock to provide needed protein. 

For More Information 

Bakarr, M.I. et al. 2001. Hunting and bushmeat utilization in the African rain forest in Advances in Applied Biodiversity 

Science 2: http://cabs.kms.conservation.org/wombat/application/document/summary.cfm?RecordID 8F15D22C 

DD5E-496E-9C61-55A7A3EC9507&ObjectID 4&IDList 8F15D22C DD5E-496E-9C61-55A7A3EC9507 

Bennett, E.L., and J. G. Robinson. 2000. Hunting of Wildlife in Tropical Forests: Implications for Biodiversity and 

Forest Peoples Environment Department Papers # 76, Biodiversity Series Impact Studies 2, The World Bank, 

Washington DC: http://www 

wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDS IBank Servlet?pcont details&eid 000094946_0103100530377 

Bushmeat Crisis Task Force: http://www.bushmeat.org/ 

Bushmeat Crisis: Causes, Consequences, and Controls (CARPE Congo Basin Information Series #23):
 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/africa/127/congo_23.html
 

Mainka, Sue and Mandar Trivedi Links between Biodiversity Conservation, Livelihoods and Food Security: The 

sustainable use of wild species for meat: http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/actionplans/wildmeat/wildmeat-eng/Wild 

Meat OP.pdf 

Overseas Development Institute, Wild Meat, Livelihoods Security, and Conservation in the Tropics: http://www.odi 

bushmeat.org/ 

World Conservation Union/Food and Agriculture Organization/TRAFFIC workshop Solutions Table, The
 

Sustainable Use of Wild Species for Meat: http://www.iucn.org/info and news/press/solutions.pdf
 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 37 
SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

38 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 

•	 Kristensen, Peter J. and Christopher J. Rader. 2001. The Strategic Management Approach: A 

Practical Planning for Development Managers: 

http://www.conservation.org/ImageCache/CIWEB/content/publications/books/smapart1 2epdf/v1/sm 

apart1.pdf 

•	 Margoluis, Richard and Nick Salafsky. 2001. Is Our Project Succeeding? A Guide to Threat 

Reduction Assessment for Conservation: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/aam/threat/tra.pdf 

•	 The Nature Conservancy. 2004. How We Work: Conservation By Design: Our Approach: 

http://nature.org/aboutus/howwework/about/art5720.html 

•	 World Wildlife Fund. Root Causes of Biodiversity Loss: 

http://www.panda.org/about wwf/what we do/policy/macro economics/root causes/index.cfm 
8.0 MONITORING, 

EVALUATING, AND 

MANAGING ADAPTIVELY 

KEY QUESTIONS 

How can donors support adaptive management in the programs they fund? 

What are some ways to measure impacts on biodiversity? 

Adaptive management is often described as a variation of the project planning cycle. It emphasizes testing 

assumptions and hypotheses, monitoring appropriate indicators, learning, and adjusting activities during 

the course of the project. 

Conservation involves complex ecological and social systems, whose responses to conservation activities 

and interventions are often unpredictable. Therefore, conservation interventions should be designed, in 

part, to test assumptions and hypotheses about the systems involved by observing their responses to 

interventions. The interventions are in turn adapted based on what is learned. This process can lead to 

better choices and more effective activities. 

SELECTING 

EFFECTIVE 

INDICATORS 

Ongoing monitoring is a key 

element of adaptive 

management. Many more 

things could be monitored than 

would be worth monitoring, 

and unnecessary monitoring 

wastes resources. A key 

question to ask in choosing 

indicators is “what information 

is needed for adaptive 

management of this project?” 

Good program monitoring 

assesses progress toward 

achieving articulated 

conservation goals and targets. 

It also requires the monitoring 

HANNAH FAIRBANK, USAID/EGAT/NRM/B. 

USAID is currently partnering with WWF in Peru to decrease the bycatch 

of marine turtles in Pacific longline fisheries through the use of alternative 

hook technology. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 39 
of key factors that are influencing conservation targets, including threats. Indicators used in conservation 

program monitoring should be directly linked to these goals, targets, and threats. This will likely involve a 

mix of ecological and socioeconomic indicators. 

Some general criteria for a good indicator include: 

•	 Useful: The information provided by the indicator can help inform programming decisions. 

•	 Measurable: Appropriate quantitative and/or qualitative changes are assessed by the indicator. 

•	 Attributable: The change measured by the indicator can reasonably be ascribed to the activities being 

undertaken. 

•	 Realistic: It is practical, cost-effective, and feasible to collect the data. 

•	 Timely: Data are collected at reasonable time intervals to effectively show change. Data is available 

when it is needed—at an appropriate time to inform decisions. 

•	 Reliable: Standard data collection methodologies are used to collect data. Data is robust and 

verifiable. 

•	 Direct: The indicator closely tracks the results it is intended to measure. If indirect proxy measures 

are used instead of direct measures for cost or other reasons, assumptions regarding how proxies are 

linked to intended results are clearly articulated. 

LEARNING LESSONS AND ADAPTING ACTIVITIES THROUGH MONITORING 

AND EVALUATION 

Learning is a key element in adaptive management. Monitoring and evaluation provides “feedback” about 

what works and what does not. This feedback can then be used to make adjustments and changes to the 

activities. Through iterative adjustment, adaptive management can help find the most rapid route toward 

reducing threats to biological diversity. 

For example, an environmental education program may inform a community about the importance of 

trees and healthy forests in the nearby mountains for providing a year-round flow of clean water. 

Indicators may show that awareness and knowledge of the value of trees to watersheds is increasing in the 

local population because of this educational campaign. On the other hand, monitoring may show that trees 

are being cut and the forest is disappearing just as fast as before, despite this increased knowledge. This 

feedback should prompt stakeholders to revisit an earlier “step” in conservation planning: identifying 

threats and understanding their causes. 

In this case, the main problem does not appear to be that local people do not know about the importance 

of forested watersheds, but that other factors are driving deforestation. Analyzing the threat further may 

show that a significant number of poor community members depend on firewood for their cooking and 

heating fuel and do not have economically viable alternatives to cutting fuelwood in the mountains. In 

this case, activities that provide affordable energy alternatives to these people may be more effective in 

conserving forests than increasing awareness and knowledge. 

Adaptive management requires enough time for its experimental, learning-by-doing approach to be 

effective. Project activities need time to influence social factors, behaviors, and threats, and the 

biodiversity targets need time to respond to these social changes. Learning in an adaptive management 

context can be rapid in some cases, however, if activities are well aimed at direct threats, and if resultoriented indicators are carefully chosen. In some cases, this learning dimension may require a longer time 

frame than USAID funding cycles will support. In such cases USAID managers can encourage projects to 

40 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
initiate long-term adaptive management strategies that will continue beyond the end of USAID funding 

and influence future activities. 

KEY QUESTIONS 

•	 How can donors support adaptive management in the programs they fund? 

Donors who fund biodiversity conservation can support adaptive management by encouraging 

projects to be results oriented and by requiring sound monitoring and evaluation frameworks. The 

indicators used to monitor such programs should be results oriented as well. For example, trends in 

household income, if based on the sustainable harvest of a non-timber forest product (NTFP) such as 

wild mushrooms, would be a better indicator of desired results than the number of studies and 

publications about NTFPs produced by the project (even though such publications might be a valued 

output of the project and/or a useful tool for replicating it elsewhere). Indicators focused on the 

impact of interventions, such as changes in the state of biodiversity measured through changes in 

population size, quality and quantity of ecological services provided, and so on, are good resultsoriented indicators. 

•	 What are some ways to measure impacts on biodiversity? 

There is no ideal indicator for all situations. Issues of baseline data availability, cost or skills involved 

in collection, selection of indicator species or ecological processes are all valid issues to consider 

when choosing indicators that measure the impacts of an activity on biodiversity. However, some 

common direct measures that might be considered include: 

−	 Change in status of a certain species (measured as population size, number of breeding animals, 

number of viable offspring, occurrence in areas where previously eradicated, etc.);
 

− Change in quality of habitat (measured as area of ground or canopy cover, rate of forest
 

degradation, index of health of forest, coral reef or marine protected area etc.); and
 

−	 Change in ecological processes (measured as quantity and flow of water, area of or numbers of 

animals, birds or fish undertaking migrations, etc.). 

Some illustrative proxy measures might include: 
 

− Area of forest cover;
 

− Condition of forest, wetland, grassland, or marine area;
 

− Management effectiveness of a protected or designated use area (with effectiveness criteria 
 

clearly defined);
 

− Reduction of previously identified threats to biodivesity in area; and
 

− Change in status of species on the IUCN Red List.
 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 41 
SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

42 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 

•	 British Columbia Forest Service. An Introductory Guide to Adaptive Management. Forest Practices 

Branch, BC Forest Service, Vancouver, Province of British Columbia, Canada: 

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/amhome/INTROGD/Toc.htm 

•	 Byers, Bruce. 2000. Understanding and Influencing Behaviors: A Guide. Biodiversity Support 

Program: http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/bsp/behaviors eng/behaviorsguide eng.pdf 

•	 Conservation Measures Partnership: http://conservationmeasures.org/CMP/ 

•	 Foundations of Success: http://fosonline.org 

•	 Red List Consortium. 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: http://www.redlist.org/ 

•	 Margoluis, Richard, and Nick Salafsky. 1999. Adaptive Management – A Tool for Conservation 

Practitioners: http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/aam/112/titlepage.htm 

•	 Margoluis, Richard and Nick Salafsky. 1998. Measures of Success: Designing, Managing, and 

Monitoring Conservation and Development Projects. Washington, DC: Island Press: 

http://www.adjacentschools.net/development/meachap0.html 
9.0 FINANCING 

CONSERVATION 

USAID programs and activities, including support for biodiversity conservation, are implemented though 

a variety of mechanisms (see Chapter 26, Implementing Mechanisms and Partners). USAID’s support, 

however, typically funds activities only for a relatively short period of time—for 3 to 10 years, for 

example. USAID or other external donor funding is not seen as a reliable mechanism for providing the 

kind of long-term support that will certainly be needed to conserve biodiversity worldwide. Because of 

USAID’s limited ability to provide long-term funding for conservation, an important element of planning 

conservation programs that will receive USAID support is to accurately identify financial needs, and 

develop alternate financial mechanisms that will sustain conservation activities after USAID funding 

ends. 

Of course, all projects need a solid financial foundation to be feasible and sustainable, so a financial plan 

may be an integral part of any conservation plan. A financial plan should identify funding needs, lay out 

how the activities of the project will be funded, and describe the most appropriate sources of funding for 

the short-, medium-, and long-term needs of the project. A financial plan describes: 

•	 Costs of existing and planned activities; 

•	 Funding sources and funding gaps; 

•	 Strategies for filling funding gaps, including identifying cost saving measures; 

•	 How funding will be used throughout the designated time period; and 

•	 What financial mechanisms will be used to continue the work after existing short-term donor support 

ends. 

When working at larger scales, however, a plan for financial sustainability should involve multiple 

strategies and numerous partners over a much longer time frame than any particular donor’s project cycle. 

FINANCIAL MECHANISMS 

In recent years, a range of sustainable conservation finance mechanisms have been used to provide 

reliable, long-term sources of funding for conservation programs. Many of these—including debt-fornature swaps, conservation trust funds, tourism user fees, and conservation concessions—are described in 

more detail below, in order to illustrate the range and creativity of the possibilities. 

The references at the end of this chapter give more information about innovative, long-term mechanisms 

for financing conservation. Conservation programs supported by USAID should plan to take advantage of 

such mechanisms to extend their work beyond the USAID funding “horizon” and to become financially 

sustainable over the long term. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 43 
DEBT-FOR-NATURE SWAPS 

In a debt-for-nature swap, a third party (often an NGO or bilateral donor) will arrange to purchase a 

portion of a country’s public debt at a discount. The third party then “forgives” the debt in exchange for a 

negotiated level of investment in conservation (usually payments made in local currency) by the country’s 

government. Several conservation NGOs, including The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Conservation 

International (CI), have been actively involved in such international dept swaps for more than a decade. 

The proceeds generated by debt-for-nature swaps are often administered by local conservation trust funds, 

which disburse grants to specific projects and ensure accountable, transparent, and decentralized 

management. The U.S. government’s Tropical Forest Conservation Act and the Enterprise for the 

Americas Initiative are bilateral programs used to forgive developing country debts in return for 

investments in conservation. 

CONSERVATION TRUST FUNDS 

Conservation trust funds are another mechanism for providing sustained, long-term funding for 

biodiversity conservation. Such funds have become more common during the past decade or so. These 

funds are usually of three main types: 

•	 Endowments, in which the principal is invested and income generated by that investment is used to 

finance activities, preserving the principal itself as a permanent asset; 

•	 Sinking funds, in which the principal and any investment income are used to finance activities over a 

set period of time (generally a relatively long time period); and 

•	 Revolving funds, in which new funding is received on a regular basis (such as from grants, taxes, user 

fees, etc.) to replenish, or even increase, the original principal. 

Many conservation funds are set up as trusts—a legal structure by which funds or other property is held, 

invested, and spent by a board of trustees or board of directors exclusively for a specific purpose, as 

defined in a charter or deed of trust. Trusts are usually locally created and managed, and their creation 

requires a considerable amount of transparency and participation. USAID has considerable experience 

with endowments, particularly ones created with U.S.-appropriated dollars that are managed as trusts. 

Conservation funds may be most appropriate when: 

•	 The issues being addressed require a sustained, long-term response; 

•	 More than one organization is needed to implement the range of activities for addressing the problem; 

•	 Existing agencies cannot effectively manage the amount of money and types of activities needed; 

•	 There is active government support and broad-based participation from relevant agencies and 

organizations; and 

•	 There are reliable systems of contracts, banking, record keeping, and auditing, as well as a climate of 

financial transparency in the country where the fund will be established. 

Environmental funds and trusts can be more than financial mechanisms. Ideally they are products of a 

broad consultative process, one that contributes to governance structures that involve people from 

different sectors, credible and transparent operational procedures, and sound financial practices. Their 

creation requires considerable time and resource inputs and a long-term commitment to establishing a 

new institution. 

44 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
Establishing a conservation fund may not always be the best use of the money available for financing 

conservation. The decision to tie up a large amount of capital to earn relatively small amounts of income 

over a long period of time should be weighed against alternative approaches—such as giving the money 

away as a grant, or making a loan. 

TOURISM USER FEES 

Tourism is the largest service industry worldwide, with ecotourism becoming an increasingly important 

segment of the market. Every year, millions of tourists around the world visit protected areas or travel to 

destinations for nature-based recreation. While protected areas often supply the most important part of 

such recreational experiences, they typically capture very little of the total economic benefits. One way to 

increase capture of those benefits is through relatively simple, market-based mechanisms (such as park 

entrance fees and concession fees), known collectively as tourism user fees. The fees partially reflect the 

cost for supplying recreational services, the demand for natural resources, and the value that visitors place 

on their experience at the site. The direct link between conservation and income from user fees provides 

conservation with a strong economic rational. With ecotourism growing so rapidly, and with the wide 

range of fees available, tourism user fees provide a conservation finance mechanism with perhaps the 

broadest application and highest overall revenue potential. 

CONSERVATION CONCESSIONS 

A conservation concession is a relatively new mechanism for conservation that involves a conservation 

organization acting as a resource extraction company by bidding on a development concession and, if 

successful, choosing not to exercise its resource extraction rights. One of the world’s first conservation 

concessions was recently negotiated between the Government of Guyana and Conservation International, 

which successfully bid on the rights to an exploratory lease of 200,000 acres of pristine forest. CI plans to 

lease the area at market rates and protect it, rather than extract timber. 

RESOURCE EXTRACTION FEES 

Extraction of nonrenewable natural resources is an important economic activity in many countries. 

Governments generally levy resource extraction royalties, fees, or taxes in order to capture a share of the 

income generated by natural resource exploitation. Ideally, governments then use these revenues to fund 

long-term investments in their countries’ sustainable development. The concept of using resource fees for 

conservation suggests that a share of income from extractive activities could be devoted to natural 

resources and protected areas conservation; particularly for conservation sites located close to the 

extractive projects. Using funds from resource extraction to co-finance conservation activities not only 

represents an important new source of revenue for conservation, it provides an opportunity for traditional 

adversaries, such as environmentalists and oil or mining companies, to find common ground. In many 

parts of the world though, the extraction of (renewable and nonrenewable) natural resources has been 

unsustainable and the distribution of benefits inequitable. Under the proper governance structures though, 

fees and taxes related to resource extraction have the potential to support long-term biodiversity 

conservation and development. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 45 
BIOPROSPECTING PAYMENTS 

Genetic resources from nature are a source of new chemical compounds that may have commercial value 

as sources of food, chemicals, industrial enzymes, or other products. Examples of bioprospecting 

arrangements might include: 

•	 A country or community might license a company to collect plants related to species known to exhibit 

certain traits from a certain area. 

•	 A company might establish a collaborative relationship with local communities or organizations, and 

pay them to do the actual collecting. 

•	 After identifying a useful plant, a company might arrange for local communities to cultivate it for sale. 

Under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), countries may assert sovereignty over their 

biodiversity by regulating access to genetic resources. Governments may require companies seeking 

access to genetic resources to obtain prior informed consent and negotiate mutually agreed terms, which 

might include benefit sharing in the form of technology transfer, collaborative research, upfront or 

milestone payments, or royalties on eventual commercial sales. 

PAYMENTS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 

WATER 

There is perhaps no other resource so valuable to humanity and yet so threatened as water. In response to 

this problem, innovative and potentially cost-effective means of providing clean and safe water that rely 

on the conservation of threatened watersheds are being tested and developed around the world. At the 

heart of this approach is the idea that healthy ecosystems, such as intact forests, clean and regulate water 

flows. Convincing key water users that the protection and maintenance of healthy watersheds provides 

real economic value to them, and as such is something worth paying for, is an important first step in 

generating water user fees. In some cases, water users have already begun to pay for the protection of 

watersheds. 

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

46 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 

•	 Bayon, Ricardo. 2000. Financing Biodiversity Conservation. Technical Paper No. ENV-134. 

Washington, DC: IADB. 37 p: http://biodiversityeconomics.org/pdf/topics-122-01.pdf 

•	 Biodiversity Economics Library. Financial Sustainability in Biodiversity Conservation Programs: 

http://www.biodiversityeconomics.org/finance/topics-24-00.htm 

•	 Conservation Finance Alliance. 2002. Conservation Finance Guide: 

http://guide.conservationfinance.org/ 

•	 Conservation International. Conservation Enterprises Program: 

http://www.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/programs/conservation enterprises/cons enterprise.xml 

•	 GEF Secretariat, Monitoring and Evaluation Team. November 1998. Evaluation of Experience with 

Conservation Trust Funds. Washington, DC: Global Environment Facility. 87 p: 

http://gefweb.org/ResultsandImpact/Monitoring Evaluation/eval all.pdf 
•	 Kaiser, Jurgen and Alain Lambert. 1996. Debt Swaps for Sustainable Development—A Practical 

Guide for NGOs. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 70 p: 

http://www.biodiversityeconomics.org/finance/topics-42-00.htm 

•	 McNeely, J.A. 1999. Achieving Financial Sustainability in Biodiversity Conservation Programs. 

Gland, Switzerland: IUCN: http://www.biodiversityeconomics.org/pdf/topics-25-01.pdf 

•	 Mitkitin, Kathleen and D. Osgood. 1995. Issues and Options in the Design of GEF-Supported Trust 

Funds for Biodiversity Conservation. Biodiversity Series No. 011. Washington, DC: World Bank: 

http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2000/02/23/000178830 98101912355299/ 

Rendered/PDF/multi page.pdf 

•	 Norris, Ruth, ed. 2000. The IPG Handbook on Environmental Funds: A Resource Book for the 

Design and Operation of Environmental Funds. New York: Pact Publications: 

http://www.undp.org/bpsp/global links/IPG%20Handbook.pdf 

•	 Reid, Walter V. et al. 1993. Biodiversity Prospecting: Using Genetic Resources for Sustainable 

Development. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute: 

http://biodiv.wri.org/pubs description.cfm?PubID=2953 

•	 The Nature Conservancy. 2003. EcoEnterprises Fund: Investing in Conservation: 

http://www.ecoenterprisesfund.com/index.htm 

•	 Tropical Forests Conservation Act. 2003. Fact Sheet, U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Oceans 

and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Fact: 

http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/fs/2003/22973.htm 

•	 USAID. Center for Development Information and Evaluation. Bioprospecting and Biodiversity 

Conservation Report: http://www.dec.org/pdf docs/pnaby200.pdf 

•	 USAID. Enterprise for the Americas Initiative: 

http://www.usaid.gov/our work/environment/compliance/eai.htm 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 47 

III. CONSERVATION 

APPROACHES 

10.0 Protected Areas
 

11.0 Community-Based Conservation
 

12.0 Sustainable Use
 

13.0 Environmental Communication
 

14.0 Policy Development and Reform
 

A Bajau woman drying seaweed which provides additional income to many villagers living in Sama Bahari, 

Indonesia. 

VEDA SANTIADJI, WWF-INDONESIA 

10.0 PROTECTED AREAS 
 

KEY QUESTIONS 

Does the protected area have clear and achievable management objectives and plans? 

Do the management plans address threats to the biodiversity of the area? 

Is the protected area legally recognized and does it have a legal management authority? 

Does the protected area have the financial, human, and capital resources to implement management plans? 

Does the protected area have participation and support from stakeholders and other affected parties? 

Is the protected area supported by a national level institution(s) that provides the structures and capacity 

necessary to assist with effective management? 

DEFINITION
 

The term protected areas 

encompasses the range of 

landscapes and seascapes that 

are managed to conserve and 

maintain elements of 

biodiversity and natural habitat. 

The World Conservation Union 

(IUCN) has developed the most 

widely recognized typology of 

protected areas, based on a 

protected area’s primary 

management objectives 

(http://www.unepwcmc.org/protected areas/ 

categories). Types of protected 

areas include strict nature 

reserves, national parks and 

monuments, wilderness areas, 

game management and hunting 

areas, and national forests. 

Protected areas can also be 

categorized by their 

management authority and 

scale. 

A Kenyan Wildlife Service ranger at the entrance to Lake Nakuru 

National Park. 

BRUCE BYERS, ARD, INC. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 51 
SIGNIFICANCE 

Protected areas are one of the main elements in building a local, national, or regional strategy for 

biodiversity conservation. The importance of large-scale planning for conservation is gaining increasing 

recognition (see Chapter 3, Issues of Scale), and one aspect of such planning involves the development of 

networks or systems of protected areas. Developing a national system of protected areas should be part of 

a country’s overall land use planning. The size and shape of protected areas, their placement in the 

ecological and human landscape, their type and management objectives, and their ecological connections 

to other protected areas are all issues that should be considered in developing a protected area system that 

both conserves biodiversity and meets human needs. National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans 

can help “mainstream” protected areas and other biodiversity conservation activities into national 

development plans. Mainstreaming biodiversity conservation requires communication and coordination 

with other sectors, including those dealing with transportation, agriculture, industry, commerce, and urban 

issues, at national and regional scales. 

KEY QUESTIONS 

•	 Does the protected area have clear and achievable management objectives and plans? 

Protected areas require management plans, as well as the capacity to develop and implement those 

plans. Management plans must have both social components—guidelines for how to manage uses and 

users—as well as biological components. For more information on management plans, see the 

following: 

–	 The World Commission on Protected Areas for a wide variety of publications on the design and 

management of protected areas, including marine protected areas: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/pubs/guidelines.htm; and 

–	 The World Resources Institute’s Guidelines for Preparing Protected Area System Plans:
 

http://pubs.wri.org/pubs content text.cfm?ContentID=541. 
 

•	 Do the management plans address threats to the biodiversity of the area? 

To be effective, protected area management must be based on an understanding of the threats the area 

faces. Once threats are identified, managers and stakeholders must work together to prioritize them, 

then address the key threats with management prescriptions and actions (see Chapter 7, Designing 

Activities). 

•	 Is the protected area legally recognized and does it have a legal management authority? 

For management plans to be effective, implementers must have recognized legal management 

authority. In some cases, the implementers with legal management authority do not have actual 

ownership of the land. For example, in community forestry, local people may be primarily 

responsible for drafting and implementing management plans, while the government retains 

ownership of the area. The authority to manage a given protected area can vary across a wide 

spectrum of groups or organizations, including government and communities (see Section 10.1, 

Community Conserved Areas), or private individuals and organizations (see Section 10.4, Private 

Protected Areas): 

− National, provincial, and local government agencies;
 

− Private organizations, either for-profit corporations or NGOs;
 

− Private individuals;
 

− Local communities; or
 

− Indigenous groups.
 

52 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
Sometimes two or more groups or organizations may hold management authority jointly. A situation 

in which local communities and national agencies share management responsibility is often called comanagement (see Chapter 11, Community-Based Conservation). 

•	 Does the protected area have the financial, human, and capital resources to implement 

management plans? 

Managing protected areas requires resources—financial, human, and capital (infrastructure and 

equipment). Some protected areas are “paper parks,” where despite having legal tenure and 

management goals on paper, there is no capacity by the management authority to oversee and enforce 

those goals, so they are widely violated. However, even paper parks seem to help slow conversion of 

natural habitats and slow resource degradation in the short term. In cases where protected areas lack 

adequate resources to carry out and enforce agreed-upon management objectives, strengthening such 

capacity makes sense. 

Financial Resources. Financing mechanisms range across a broad spectrum, including: 

–	 Direct central government support through central budgets, 

–	 Parastatal and other arrangements in which some revenue generated by user fees and other 

mechanisms is retained by the management agency, 

–	 Concession fees from private concessions within protected areas, 

–	 Extra-national funding from international donors and NGOs, 

–	 Private funding for protected areas, and 

–	 Conservation trust funds. 

Financial mechanisms for supporting biodiversity conservation are discussed in Chapter 9, Financing 

Conservation. 

Human Resources. Effective protected area management requires managers, staff, or volunteers with 

the skills and experience to carry out all of the management objectives. With adequate funding, staff 

capacity can eventually be built—although it may require a long process of education and human 

capacity building reaching through several generations. You can find more information about how to 

strengthen human resources and build capacity for park management in the Biodiversity Support 

Program publication, What’s Your Role? A Guide for Training Officers in Protected Area 

Management (Web link is indicated below). 

Capital Resources (Infrastructure and Equipment). As with human resources, financial resources are 

necessary but not always sufficient to obtain the equipment and infrastructure needed for sustainable 

protected area management. 

•	 Does the protected area have participation and support from stakeholders and other affected 

parties? 

Establishing protected areas and developing their management plans are parts of the process that 

requires good governance, democratization, development of civil society, rule of law, political will, 

participation by all stakeholders, and conflict resolution mechanisms. Thus, the effectiveness of 

protected areas as a tool for biodiversity conservation is ultimately linked to the development of 

effective democratic governance. This applies even to private reserves, which cannot function in total 

isolation from other stakeholders in an area. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 53 
•	 Is the protected area supported by a national-level institution(s) that provides the structures and 

capacity necessary to assist with effective management? 

Overarching all of the above is the need for a functioning national-level institution that is able to 

support the network of protected areas and to manage the national-level policy and planning 

processes. Capacities that need to be developed at the national level include (1) efficient and effective 

relationships with Park Management units, including proper balance of delegation of authority; (2) 

efficiency and capacity to actually approve management plans and ensure that management planning 

is being carried out according to their established legal criteria; (3) ability to develop laws, write laws, 

or contract/procure experts that can; (4) establishment of procurement mechanisms and financing 

mechanisms; and (5) systems that allow for coordination between agencies and systems that allow for 

public consultations. 

Support at the national level is often a long-term venture and, where necessary and reasonable, should 

probably be carried out in tandem with actions at the local level. 

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

54 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 

Global protected area systems 

•	 World Heritage sites—the UNESCO World Heritage Committee: 

http://whc.unesco.org/nwhc/pages/sites/s worldx.htm 

•	 The Man and the Biosphere Reserves: http://www.unesco.org/mab/wnbr.htm 

•	 Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance: http://www.ramsar.org/index_list.htm 

• United Nations List of Protected Areas: http://www.unepwcmc.org/protected areas/UN list/index.htm 

Regional protected area systems 

•	 European Union’s Natura 2000: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/home.htm 

•	 Mesoamerican Biological Corridor: http://www.biomeso.net (Spanish), 

http://www.tbpa.net/case 10.htm (English description). 

•	 ASEAN Heritage Parks and Reserves: http://www.aseansec.org/6078.htm (Declaration), 

http://www.arcbc.org/arcbcweb/pdf/vol1no3/49-51_profiles.pdf (Description). 

•	 Baltic Sea Protected Areas: http://www.helcom.fi/Recommendations/en_GB/rec15_5/ 

Local systems 

•	 Indigenous land and sacred groves (for example, see 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/pdfs/workshops/sacredness.pdf) 

Other 

•	 Biodiversity Support Program. What’s Your Role? A Guide for Training Officers in Protected Area 

Management: http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/africa/whats your role/role toc.html 

•	 Brown, J.; Kothari, A. (eds). 2002. IUCN Local Communities and Protected Areas. World 

Conservation Union: http://www.iied.org/blg/researchthemes index.html 

• Convention on Biological Diversity: http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/crosscutting/protected/default.asp 

•	 United Nations List of Protected Areas: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/protected areas/UN list/ 
• United Nations Environment Program. World Conservation Monitoring Center: http://www.unepwcmc.org 

•	 United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. Man and the Biosphere Program: 

http://www.unesco.org/mab/ and http://www.mabnetamericas.org/home2.html 

•	 United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. World Heritage Committee: 

http://www.unesco.org/whc/nwhc/pages/sites/s_worldx.htm 

•	 U.S. National Parks Service: http://www.nature.nps.gov/protectingrestoring/index.htm 

•	 Information about the location of protected areas around the world is available from the World 

Conservation Monitoring Center at: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/protected areas/index.html 

•	 World Commission on Protected Areas and the IUCN Program on Protected Areas: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/index.html 

•	 World Conservation Union. Protected Areas fact sheet: http://www.iucn.org/news/pambrief.pdf 

•	 World Parks Congress. 2003. Recommendation 17: Recognizing and Supporting a Diversity of 

Governance Types for Protected Areas: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/pdfs/outputs/recommendations/approved/english/html/r1 

7.htm 

•	 World Resources Institute. Biodiversity and Protected Areas: 

http://pubs.wri.org/pubs content text.cfm?ContentID=541 

•	 World Wildlife Fund. Paper abstracts from Beyond the Trees: An International Conference on the 

Design and Management of Forest Protected Areas: 

http://www.panda.org/downloads/forests/beyondthetrees.pdf 

•	 World Wildlife Fund. Position paper on protected areas: 

http://www.panda.org/downloads/protectedareaspositionpaperwpc2003 svvl.pdf 

•	 World Wildlife Fund and World Bank. 2002. Reporting Progress on Management Effectiveness in 

Protected Areas-A simple site-level tracking tool: 

http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/essd/envext.nsf/80bydocname/reportingprogressinprotectedareamanage 

menteffectivenesstrackingtooljuly2002/$file/patrackingtooljune2003.pdf 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 55 
10.1 COMMUNITY CONSERVED AREAS 

KEY QUESTIONS 

Has the community demonstrated a will to preserve the CCA? 

Does the community have secure tenure over the CCA? 

Does the community have the capacity and necessary support (technical, financial, etc.) to protect and 

manage the CCA? 

Given resource extraction practices by the community, is the CCA sustainable in the long term? 

Is there legal backing and government support for the CCA? 

DEFINITION 

Local communities have often conserved areas of natural or semi-natural habitat, for a variety of 

ecological and cultural reasons, and these have been called “community conserved areas” (CCAs). They 

may or may not be legally recognized by national governments and designated for management and 

protection. Thousands of small sites are conserved as village forests and pastures, sacred groves, and 

restricted hunting or fishing areas by communities worldwide. 

SIGNIFICANCE 

Many CCAs have enormous value for biodiversity and ecological services, yet most of these 

nontraditional protected areas are not part of official protected area networks. Because of this, their 

conservation benefits may not have been recognized, and they may not have received the support 

necessary to address the serious threats many of them face. 

There are many types of CCAs around the world, including: 

•	 Sacred sites: Sacred sites have been traditionally protected for their spiritual value and may be the 

least modified type of CCA. Strict prohibitions and regulations on resource use often have kept these 

areas rich in biological diversity, many of them harboring endangered plant species including rare 

herbs and medicinal plants. These areas include forests, rivers, lakes, springs, mountains, caves, trees, 

or islands. 

•	 Enriched natural forests: Communities in many parts of the world have developed agroforestry 

systems that protect some elements of natural forest and supplement them with domesticated or semidomesticated species in forest gardens. 

•	 Community forests: Communities have protected, tended, and sometimes restored natural forests for 

woodlots, water protection, defense around human habitations, and other uses. 

•	 Rangelands and water sources: These are traditional grounds of pastoral and nomadic communities, 

including rangelands, water sources and forest patches. They are strongly interdependent for herd, 

ecosystem, and collectively managed river basins (such natural and cultural ecosystems have multiple 

land/water uses integrated into each other). 

•	 Community declared wildlife sanctuaries: These areas are conserved by communities to protect 

wildlife habitats. 

56 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
Two types of CCAs that are increasingly receiving legal recognition are indigenous protected areas and 

community forests. 

•	 Indigenous protected areas: Large areas under indigenous peoples’ ownership or control exist 

throughout the world. Indigenous lands have an enormous potential to contribute to biodiversity 

conservation. Many of the indigenous lands are large, have high biodiversity value, and indigenous 

use may have had minimal ecological impact on the biotic resources of the area. The potential 

benefits of indigenous protected areas include effective conservation with extremely low levels of 

financial resources, and the mutual benefit to indigenous communities and to biodiversity from 

defending these lands from extractive industries and from settlement. These reserves must involve the 

full participation of the indigenous communities, and traditional practices of land and sea 

management should be incorporated in the management of these areas. 

•	 Community forests: Community forests are forests that are managed or comanaged by local 

communities. Community forests are typically forest commons managed by local communities for 

local resource use, and they often represent only relatively modified ecosystems. Ecological 

conditions and the biodiversity value of community forests vary greatly. Studies show that many 

community forests have high floral diversity and provide many ecological services. These forestry 

systems have immense potential for contributing toward biodiversity conservation, particularly in 

buffer zones and corridors of officially designated protected areas. Community forests also contribute 

enormously toward meeting local subsistence needs, hence reducing pressure on protected areas that 

have communities living in or around them. In many parts of the world, communities have managed 

forests sustainably for the production of timber or non-timber forest products, thus providing income 

to the community. 

KEY QUESTIONS 

•	 Has the community demonstrated a will to preserve the CCA? 

For a CCA to be successful and sustainable, the community must have demonstrated a will to 

conserve it. Experience has shown that centralized models of development and conservation have 

undermined diverse, site-specific traditions of natural resources management in local communities. 

Many donor- or government-driven initiatives toward community participation in conservation have 

failed due to lack of transparency and accountability, inadequate transfer of powers and capacity, and 

lack of participation by communities. 

•	 Does the community have secure tenure over the CCA? 

Communities need secure tenure over the natural resources within the CCA or their motivation to 

manage it sustainably will be compromised. Tenure may range from temporary rights through leases 

from the government, to ownership rights recognized by national legislation (see Chapter 14, Policy 

Development and Reform). 

•	 Does the community have the capacity and necessary support (technical, financial, etc.) to 

protect and manage the CCA? 

For CCAs to be effective, the community must have the capacity—including technical knowledge, 

skills, resources (financial and otherwise), and institutions—to protect and manage the CCA. Given 

the larger context within which CCAs exist, communities will often require external support to 

effectively protect an area. At the same time, outside agencies must be careful to support and 

strengthen existing local natural resources management and governance, taking care not to undermine 

the community’s approach. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 57 
•	 Given resource extraction practices by the community, is the CCA sustainable in the long term? 

For CCAs to be sustainable, community resource extraction rates must be within the carrying capacity 

of the area. Community population growth (from immigration or birth rates higher than replacement) 

and ties to external markets can rapidly affect the effectiveness and viability of the CCA. 

•	 Is there legal backing and government support for the CCA? 

The benefits of CCAs to biodiversity and to local livelihood security often are not recognized or are 

poorly understood. Serious threats to CCAs may come from the larger context in which they exist. 

National politics, centralized control over natural resources, national and global markets, privatization 

of common property resources, and mass tourism may all contribute to threats from the outside. 

Addressing these threats generally requires legal backing and government support. 

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

58 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 

•	 Australian Indigenous Protected Areas Program: http://www.atns.net.au/biogs/A000447b.htm 

•	 Borrini-Feyerabend, G. ed. 1997. Beyond Fences: Seeking Social Sustainability in Conservation. 

IUCN, Gland (Switzerland): 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/spg/Files/beyond fences/beyond fences.html#contents 

•	 Brazilian indigenous reserves: http://www.conservation.org/xp/frontlines/people/focus31-2.xml 

•	 Community forests and forestry: http://www.rainforestinfo.org.au/good wood/comm fy.htm; or 

http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/webview/forestry2/index.jsp?siteId=4321&langId=1 

•	 Promoting Community Conserved Areas in International Forums: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Wkg grp/TILCEPA/WPC/TILCEPA%20CCA%20mandate%20an 

d%20work06.03.03.doc 

•	 World Conservation Union. CCA and co-management: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Wkg grp/TILCEPA/community.htm 

•	 World Parks Congress Recommendation 26: Community Conserved Areas: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/pdfs/outputs/recommendations/approved/english/html/r2 

6.htm 
10.2 MARINE PROTECTED AREAS
 

KEY QUESTIONS 

Does the design of the MPA or network of MPAs include all areas necessary to significantly conserve the 

biodiversity and ecosystems of interest? 

Are there land based threats to the MPA and are activities planned to reduce them? 

DEFINITION
 

A marine protected area (MPA) is “an 

area of sea especially dedicated to the 

protection and maintenance of 

biodiversity, and of natural and 

associated cultural resources, and 

managed through legal or other 

effective means” 

(http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/ 

wpc2003/pdfs/programme/cct/marine/ 

mpasfisheriesaut.pdf). As for other 

kinds of protected areas, MPAs can 

have a wide range of management 

objectives. They range from small, 

locally managed fisheries or “no-take” 

reserves to larger areas that are zoned 

for multiple uses, including national 

parks, wildlife refuges, marine 

sanctuaries, fishery management areas, 

and estuarine reserves. Fish pens for live reef fish, Papua, Indonesia. 

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, INDONESIA 

SIGNIFICANCE 

Marine and coastal protected areas play vital roles in conserving biodiversity. MPAs can help maintain 

ecosystem productivity; protect important feeding, spawning, or nursery grounds for fish; and improve 

fisheries. MPAs can help increase fish populations both inside and outside the reserves by exporting eggs, 

larvae, and adult fish beyond their boundaries. More than 1,300 MPAs now exist worldwide. 

KEY QUESTIONS 

•	 Does the design of the MPA or network of MPAs include all areas necessary to significantly 

conserve the biodiversity and ecosystems of interest? 

The sizes and location of MPAs and MPA networks (as well as of all protected areas), is important to 

consider. As is the case for birds, mammals, and insects, many fish and other marine organisms 

require multiple habitats to provide needs for feeding, breeding, etc. throughout their lifecycle. Some 

marine species require coastal estuaries and mangroves as habitat during part of their lifecycle, and 

open ocean habitats at other stages. As with other kinds of protected areas, MPAs should be 

integrated into an ecosystem-scale strategy for conservation. The World Summit for Sustainable 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 59 
Development and the World Parks Congress both called for the creation of networks of representative 

MPAs by 2012 to enhance the resilience of marine ecosystems and to ensure sustainable fisheries. 

•	 Are there land-based threats to the MPA and are activities planned to reduce them? 

Land-based threats to MPAs may exist, such as from pollution or siltation due to erosion, and coastal 

land use and watershed planning may be needed to address them. Linking terrestrial and marine 

conservation efforts, such as in a “ridge to reef” approach, is often necessary to effectively conserve 

for MPAs. 

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

60 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 

•	 Commonwealth of Australia. 2003. Benefits of Marine Protected Areas: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/pdfs/programme/cct/marine/mpasfisheriesaut.pdf 

•	 Marine Protected Area Executive Order and resource site: 

http://mpa.gov/mpa center/mpa center.html 

•	 MPA News: http://depts.washington.edu/mpanews/ 

•	 Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations. Marine Protected Areas and Marine Reserves: 

http://www.pcffa.org/MPA.htm 

•	 Pew Oceans Commission. Marine Reserves: A Tool for Ecosystem Management and Conservation:” 

http://www.pewtrusts.org/pdf/pew oceans marine reserves.pdf 

•	 Pomeroy, Robert, John Parks and Lani Watson. 2004. How is Your MPA Doing? A Guidebook of 

Natural and Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected Area Management Effectiveness. 

IUCN. Program on Protected Areas: http://www.effectivempa.noaa.gov/guidebook/guidebook.html 

•	 The Nature Conservancy. Transforming Coral Reef Conservation: 

http://nature.org/initiatives/marine/strategies/art12286.html 

•	 World Conservation Union page on MPAs: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/pdfs/programme/cct/marine/mpasfisheriesaut.pdf 

•	 World Resources Institute. Tools for protecting marine biodiversity: 

http://pubs.wri.org/pubs content text.cfm?ContentID=810 

•	 World Wildlife Fund. Conservation Science/Marine Science Program: 

http://worldwildlife.org/science/marine.cfm 
10.3 TRANSBOUNDARY PROTECTED AREAS 

KEY QUESTIONS 

Does the transboundary conservation initiative achieve objectives that cannot be achieved through programs 

limited to the national level? 

Is there political support for the transboundary initiative at the national and local levels in all participating 

nations? 

Does the transboundary conservation effort include appropriate agreements to achieve its objectives? 

Does the program emphasize good governance? 

DEFINITION 

Transboundary conservation areas (TBCAs) involve cross-border (across the borders of sovereign states) 

collaboration to achieve biodiversity conservation and development goals. TBCAs can involve various 

spatial arrangements, but the most common is two or more contiguous protected areas that span a national 

boundary. TBCAs may also be referred to as transboundary protected areas (TBPAs) or transfrontier 

conservation areas (TFCAs). Transboundary river basins with high biodiversity value can also be a 

special type of TBCA in some cases. For information on various types of transboundary conservation 

initiatives, see the Web links below. 

SIGNIFICANCE 

TBCAs are an important tool for ecosystem-scale conservation and have increased rapidly over the last 15 

years. Today there are more than 169 TBPA complexes, involving 666 protected areas in 113 countries, 

representing a variety of IUCN categories of protected areas. Transboundary conservation programs can 

provide a number of ecological as well as socio-political benefits. Transboundary initiatives can help 

maintain or restore linkages in ecological landscapes, maintaining cross-border watersheds, ecosystem 

processes, and critical habitats. TBCAs can help to address shared, cross-border threats jointly, and lead 

to collaborative efforts to realize mutual conservation benefits and economic opportunities (such as 

through ecotourism). TBCAs can improve cooperation among countries and communities. In many parts 

of the world, “peace parks” are being promoted for the conservation of biological and cultural diversity 

and peace. 

KEY QUESTIONS 

•	 Does the transboundary conservation initiative achieve objectives that cannot be achieved 

through programs limited to the national level? 

In many areas, threats may originate across political borders and can only be addressed through 

transboundary conservation initiatives. The benefits of a TBCA should outweigh the costs for each 

party if the collaboration is to be successful. Careful consideration should be given as to whether a 

TBCA will provide mutual benefits or if it is more effective for countries to manage their shared 

resources independently. It is critical that partner countries have a shared vision with common goals 

and objectives, and incentives for cooperation. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 61 
•	 Is there political support for the transboundary initiative at the national and local levels in all 

participating nations? 

The rewards from instituting TBCA initiatives are also accompanied by several challenges. They 

require collaboration among multiple national and local governments, as well as among local 

stakeholders across political borders. These complexities can make TBCA programs costly and time 

consuming. Because TBCAs often increase the involvement of upper government levels, the political 

will and long-term commitment from the national governments is especially critical for TBCAs to be 

successful. The production of joint education and outreach materials for transboundary protected 

areas, as well as regular joint technical meetings, trainings, seminars, and management plans have the 

potential to build political support, improve staff morale, and enhance cooperative efforts overall. 

•	 Does the transboundary conservation effort include appropriate agreements to achieve its 

objectives? 

Although TBCA bilateral agreements hold great promise for international conservation cooperation, 

they have the potential to be lengthy, expensive, and limited in their success. Before formal talks take 

place between governments, a process that identifies issues, assesses different options for an 

agreement, and develops a strategy that creates reasonable expectations may help avoid many of the 

potential pitfalls of intergovernmental negotiations on transboundary conservation cooperation. 

In addition to formal agreements between governments, there are many flexible and less expensive 

legal options for creating TBCAs, including: 

–	 A joint arrangement (e.g., Memorandum of Understanding) for collaboration in cross-border 

protected area management or enforcement; 

–	 An agreement or protocol regarding environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and notice to, and 

possible participation by, people and institutions across the border prior to action affecting 

protected areas on or near the border; 

–	 Development of a bilateral/intraregional network linking key protected areas; and 

–	 A public/private contract or joint venture. 

Unlike an agreement that must be negotiated at the highest levels of government, these less formal 

mechanisms may be negotiated by the management of the protected areas and they can be more 

flexible, taking advantage of a mutual desire to collaborate. Initially, agreements may be limited to, 

for example, an annual meeting between managers. The agreement can evolve as the collaboration’s 

effectiveness is seen, and changes can be easily negotiated. Eventually, the parties may be ready to 

negotiate a more formal agreement. 

•	 Does the program emphasize good governance? 

Because of their transnational nature, TBCAs tend to increase the involvement of national 

government actors and stakeholders, whose interests sometimes conflict with the interests of local 

communities or private landowners. In cases where local and national-level interests conflict, donors 

and international NGOs supporting TBCAs must make special efforts to ensure that governance 

issues are addressed adequately. Because of the transnational aspects of TBCAs, it is especially 

critical that agreements emphasize good governance, including transparency and accountability 

within the government, and among local, regional, and national stakeholders. 

62 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 63 

•	 Cardiff University/World Conservation Union. Transboundary Conservation Areas: 

http://www.cf.ac.uk/cplan/sacl/cs-transboundary_cas.pdf 

•	 Global Transboundary Protected Areas Network: http://www.tbpa.net/ 

•	 South Africa National Parks. Transfrontier Parks: http://www.sanparks.org/conservation/transfrontier/ 

•	 van der Linde, Harry et al. 2001. Beyond Boundaries: Transboundary Natural Resources Management 

in Sub-Saharan Africa: http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/africa/144/Beyond 

Boundaries-Frontmatter.html 

•	 World Bank –Transboundary implementation of the ecosystem approach: http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDS IBank Servlet?pcont=details&eid=000094946 00101105374277 

•	 World Conservation Union. Guidelines on Transboundary Protected Areas for Peace and 

Cooperation: http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/pubs/pdfs/Transboundary guide.pdf 

•	 World Conservation Union. Transboundary Protected Areas Global Program: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/english/outputs/transboundary.htm 

•	 World Parks Congress. 2003. A Global Network to Support the Development of Transboundary 

Conservation Initiatives. Recommendation 11: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/pdfs/outputs/recommendations/approved/english/pdf/r11. 

pdf 
10.4 PRIVATE PROTECTED AREAS 

KEY QUESTIONS 

Are there economic incentives for private land conservation (as well as for community conservation areas)? 

Do landowners have the capacity and tools to undertake conservation on their land? 

Is the government capacity and legal framework sufficient to promote and integrate private conservation 

efforts into national objectives? 

Is there collaboration between public and private sectors in the management and conservation of protected 

lands? 

DEFINITION 

A private protected area refers to an area that is: 

• Managed for biodiversity conservation objectives; 

• Protected with or without formal government recognition; and 

• Owned or otherwise secured by individuals, communities, corporations, or NGOs. 

Private conservation areas, like publicly protected areas, vary greatly in terms of management objectives, 

allowable activities, and level of protection. These may include formally declared private areas, lands 

subject to conservation easements, game ranches, mixed commercial operations based on sustainable use, 

and land trusts. 

SIGNIFICANCE 

Privately owned protected areas are increasingly important components of national conservation 

strategies, numbering in the thousands and protecting several million hectares of biologically important 

habitat around the world. They can aid in protecting corridors, buffer zones, areas underrepresented in 

public park systems, and other key components of larger ecosystems that governments are not protecting 

for lack of financial resources, political will, or other reasons. In eastern and southern Africa, privately 

owned lands play an important role in conserving critical biodiversity, with private protected areas in 

southern Africa alone protecting millions of ecologically important hectares, especially in critical buffer 

zones and corridor areas. 

Private protected areas often integrate conservation with economic uses. Examples include activities such 

as ecotourism, game ranching, or harvesting NTFPs. This integration provides revenues that make private 

conservation financially feasible. However, this may make private conservation lands more vulnerable to 

economic fluctuations caused by changes in policy at the local, national, and international levels or 

changes in the market, making competing land uses such as agriculture, logging, and ranching more 

profitable. This vulnerability, in turn, puts the conserved ecosystems at increased risk. This is also true for 

CCAs. 

64 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
KEY QUESTIONS 

•	 Are there economic incentives for private land conservation (as well as for community 

conservation areas)? 

Private landowners may be motivated to conserve their land for many reasons (family history, 

traditional livelihoods, etc.) but economic gain may be one of the more powerful incentives for 

private landowners to adopt conservation practices or establish a private protected area. Incentives 

can include property tax exemptions for lands placed in conservation status, payments for the 

environmental services provided by conservation lands, development of markets for environmental 

goods and services, purchase or transfer of development rights, and other forms of government 

financial and technical assistance. 

•	 Do landowners have the capacity and tools to undertake conservation on their land? 

Landowners may need assistance and support to develop their capacity to conserve their lands and to 

understand the full value and potential of their land for conservation. 

•	 Is the government capacity and legal framework sufficient to promote and integrate private 

conservation efforts into national objectives? 

National and local governments require the capacity and legal frameworks to authorize and monitor 

formal private conservation protection efforts, and integrate them into their overall conservation 

strategies. The government judicial systems need the capacity and legal backing to enforce private 

land conservation mechanisms effectively and consistently. Governments need the capacity to 

communicate available programs and conservation options as well as provide technical and legal 

assistance to landowners. Private land conservation efforts should be integrated into public 

conservation strategies by maximizing protection of ecosystems inadequately represented among 

public protected areas. 

•	 Is there collaboration between public and private sectors in the management and conservation 

of protected lands? 

Cooperation between private landowners and other stakeholders, such as national governments or 

local communities, should be promoted, particularly regarding complementary land uses. 

Mechanisms should be created to increase and deepen the transfer of technology, knowledge, and 

experience between private landowners and other stakeholders. 

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

•	 Watkins, C.W., A.M. Barrett, R. Smith, and J.R. Paine. 1996. Private Protected Areas: A Preliminary 

Study of Private Initiatives to Conserve Biodiversity in Selected African Countries. World 

Conservation Monitoring Center. London: 

ftp://ftp.wcmc.org.uk/products/wcmc.publications/reports/private protected areas/text.htm 

•	 World Parks Congress. 2003. Private protected areas: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/english/outputs/durban/eissues.htm#5 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 65 
11.0 COMMUNITY-BASED 
 

CONSERVATION 
 

KEY QUESTIONS 

Is there a community that can be supported in its conservation activities? 

Does the community have secure tenure to the land or resources to be conserved? 

Is there full community participation in planning and management? 

Does the activity address threats to biodiversity? 

Does the activity recognize and incorporate local management systems and institutions? 

Is there a supportive national and international context and enabling environment? 

DEFINITION 

Community-based conservation (CBC) initiatives are undertaken by communities for the purpose of 

benefiting their long-term development while meeting biodiversity conservation goals. In CBC, local 

people play a central role in biodiversity conservation. CBC is a piece of the broader concept of 

community-based natural resources management (CBNRM), of which not all activities address 

biodiversity conservation goals specifically, but instead include natural resources management more 

widely. 

CBC can occur in numerous 

settings, including: 

•	 Community conserved areas 

(described in Chapter 10.1), 

•	 Buffer zones of nationally 

managed protected areas of 

all categories, 

•	 Nationally managed 

protected areas with 

communities inside their 

boundaries, 

•	 Indigenous reserves, and 

•	 Extractive reserves. A women’s forest user group near the Barida Reserve in the Terai Arc 

Landscape (TAL) of southern Nepal. USAID supports the World 

Wildlife Fund’s work in the region. 

SAFIA AGGARWAL, ARD, INC. 

66 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
SIGNIFICANCE 

The conservation and management of biotic resources and biodiversity by local residents—like the 

establishment of protected areas—is one of the central elements of any global, national, or local strategy 

for biodiversity conservation. 

Potential benefits of CBC for biodiversity include: 

• Stronger incentives for local people to conserve natural resources, 

• Reduced cost through effective local management, and 

• Management based on local ecological knowledge where it is present. 

CBC is based on the idea that conservation of natural resources is best achieved by enabling local 

communities to derive benefits from the sustainable use of these resources. CBC initiatives are sometimes 

controversial because community development objectives are not always consistent with conservation 

objectives, and communities may or may not possess sufficient local ecological knowledge to sustainably 

manage their natural resources without significant support. This is also true for private land conservation 

and CCAs. 

KEY QUESTIONS 

• Is there a community that can be supported in its conservation activities? 

For a conservation activity to be called community based, local residents—the members of the local 

community—must have a strong role in managing the biodiversity resources in question. A 

community can be defined as a relatively small group of people living in the same area, generally 

having similar values and interests and capable of making decisions and resolving disputes without 

outside intervention. 

Communities are never homogenous entities. Instead, they are made up of individuals who differ in 

age, gender, economic and political power, source of livelihood, and other dimensions. Because of the 

diversity within local communities, there can be stakeholder groups with different interests even at 

the local level. All communities may have internal conflicts and divergent interests, as well as 

differences along economic, gender, and social lines. Any organization that wants to support CBC 

must understand and respect community heterogeneity. This is as true for leaders within the 

community as it is for outsiders seeking to facilitate or fund such programs. Local perspectives about 

the values of the many different elements of biodiversity may differ greatly within a community as 

well as from those of stakeholders at the national or global level. In cases where values differ between 

these stakeholders, tradeoffs may have to be made increasing the need for conflict resolution tools 

and strategies (see Chapter 17, Conflict). 

Sometimes local communities and national agencies share management responsibility more or less 

equally. This middle region of the spectrum of management authority is a situation called co

management. It is a subset of the possible arrangements for CBNRM. Co-management is in some 

cases a step along the road to full devolution of management authority to local communities. In many 

other situations, however, co-management can be viewed as an endpoint in the attempt to balance the 

interests of stakeholders at both national and local levels. Co-management is sometimes called joint 

management or collaborative management. 

­

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 67 
• Does the community have secure tenure to the land or resources to be conserved? 

Successful CBC usually requires secure land or resource tenure at the community level. Tenure 

security can come through formalized and legal processes, or may stem from traditional, customary 

systems of community land rights. Increased security of tenure enables local communities to have the 

possibility of long-term incentives for sustainable resource management. Secure tenure is often a 

necessary condition for sustainable management, but not a sufficient one. (For more on tenure, see 

Chapter 14, Policy Development and Reform.) 

• Is there full community participation in planning and management? 

Because CBC is defined by a fundamental shift in the locus of control over biodiversity and the 

responsibility for conserving it—that is, a shift from the international or national level to the local 

level—requires true and active participation of local communities. Sometimes this participation must 

be patiently cultivated. A long history of mistrust and bad relations between national wildlife 

authorities and local communities may require some time to overcome. In many cases, staff members 

of national parks; of departments of wildlife, forestry, and fisheries; and of international conservation 

NGOs must recognize the need to work with communities and learn how to do it. Building the 

capacity to work with local communities within the staff of these organizations may be a necessary 

first step toward effective CBC. Within communities, reciprocal skills for working with national and 

international counterparts are needed, including planning, organizational, business, financial 

management, and language and other communications skills. In some sites, CBC or CBNRM may not 

be feasible or the most effective management choice. 

Authentic participation requires full community involvement in setting conservation priorities (see 

Chapter 6, Choosing Conservation Priorities). The community must have the power to set priorities 

according to its own values and needs. The challenge, however, is to reconcile community priorities 

with those of stakeholders at national and international levels, if possible, and to find “win-win” 

solutions to conservation problems. When these priorities conflict, it is critical to make tradeoffs 

explicit and to have a transparent, open process through which to resolve these conflicts. Measuring 

and judging progress and success also requires participatory monitoring and evaluation (see Chapter 

8, Monitoring, Evaluating, and Managing Adaptively). 

• Does the activity address threats to biodiversity? 

As with any conservation activity, CBC must address threats to the biodiversity that the community is 

trying to conserve (see Chapter 5, Analyzing Conservation Threats and Opportunities). Not all 

CBNRM activities will have conservation of biodiversity as a priority or directly address threats to 

biodiversity. For example, an outside organization may help a community build a health clinic, 

without making a direct link between that development need and the conservation of local 

biodiversity. Another example of a loose conservation and development linkage would be a 

community effort to rear small livestock such as pigs, goats, or chickens to provide an alternative 

protein source and thereby reduce the need to hunt and trap wild animals for meat. In a case like this, 

if people are using bushmeat for food or to sell, small livestock programs may take pressure off of the 

local natural resources base, but there is the potential for this project to simply supplement the income 

or protein that is gained through bushmeat hunting, and not reduce hunting. To ensure that 

community-based activities do meet a biodiversity standard, the linkages between livelihood or other 

development ends and biodiversity conservation must be direct and explicit. Fortunately, even in 

cases where biodiversity conservation has not initially been considered, community-based activities 

can be easily modified or supplemented to meet multiple goals and enhance the success of both 

economic development and biodiversity conservation ends. 

68 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
•	 Does the activity recognize and incorporate local management systems and institutions? 

Local communities have traditionally regulated natural resource use themselves, including land, 

forests, water, pastures and wildlife. In many traditional management systems, communities zone 

their territory for different uses (e.g., village areas, agricultural fields, grazing lands, hunting areas, 

and sacred sites), and place species-specific or time-specific restrictions on resource use. Traditional 

ecological knowledge (see Chapter 11.2) informs these local management systems. These traditional 

natural resources management systems often favor collaborative action, have mechanisms for 

collective decision making, monitor and enforce norms of behavior, and help resolve disputes. 

Many of these traditional resource management systems have been suppressed or lost, in part because 

national-level natural resources management agencies assumed that traditional management systems 

are unscientific and incompatible with conservation. 

•	 Is there a supportive national and international context and enabling environment? 

Communities do not exist in a political or economic vacuum, but are linked in significant ways with 

the world around them. Globalization is rapidly increasing the influences from outside the community 

that can overwhelm and undo community decisions. Communities cannot act alone in today’s world; 

local people need allies at both the national and international levels. 

At the national level, a legal and policy framework is needed, because successful CBC may require 

formal devolution of resource use and management rights that were formerly held by agencies at the 

national level, or formal recognition of de facto or indigenous rights over natural resources. An 

essential role for national governments is to provide a legal framework that recognizes the rights and 

responsibilities of local groups in conservation and natural resources management. CBC also does not 

mean that national governments can abdicate all authority for conservation and sustainable use of 

natural resources. If they do, conservation values of national or global importance may be lost, and 

the legitimate pluralism of values and interests of all stakeholders may not be respected. Although 

local stakeholders must have a fair role in conservation, stakeholders at other levels also have 

legitimate interests, and these should be respected. 

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 69 

•	 Adhikari, Jay Ram. 2001. Community-Based Natural Resources Management in Nepal with 

Reference to Community Forestry: A Gender Perspective. A Journal of the Environment, Vol. 6, No. 

7: http://www.cbnrm.net/pdf/adhikan jr 001 communityforestry.pdf 

•	 Borrini-Feyerabend, G., M.T. Farvar, J.C. Nguinguiri, and V.A. Ndangang. 2000. Co-management of 

Natural Resources: Organising, Negotiating and Learning-by-Doing. Heidelberg: GTZ and IUCN. 

Kaspa Verlag: http://nrm.massey.ac.nz/changelinks/cmnr.html 

•	 Borrini-Feyerabend, G. ed. Beyond Fences: Seeking Social Sustainability in Conservation, Section 

1.4 Options for Action: http://www.iucn.org/themes/spg/Files/beyond fences/bf section1 2.html 

•	 Byers, Bruce. 2000. Understanding and Influencing Behaviors: A Guide. Biodiversity Support 

Program: http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/bsp/behaviors eng/behaviorsguide eng.pdf 

•	 Community-Based Natural Resources Management Network: http://www.cbnrm.net/ 

•	 Corbett, Tony, Marcus Lane, and Chris Clifford. Achieving Indigenous Involvement in Management 

of Protected Areas: Lessons from Recent Australian Experience: 

http://www.nrsm.uq.edu.au/iucn/pages/chap/15/main15.htm 
•	 Eldis. Collaborative Forest Management: Villagers & Government: The Case of Mgori Forest, 

Tanzania: http://www.eldis.org/static/DOC6424.htm 

•	 Food and Agriculture Organization. Forests, Trees and People Program: 

http://www.cof.orst.edu/org/istf/ftpp.htm 

•	 Joint Forest Management: http://www.teriin.org/jfm/jfm.htm 

•	 Pandey, Deep Narayan. Traditional Knowledge Systems for Biodiversity Conservation: 

http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/t es/t es pande conserve.htm 

•	 Richards, Michael, Gil Yaron, and Jonathan Davies. Stakeholder Incentives in Participatory Forest 

Management: A Manual for Economic Analysis. CIFOR: 

http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/docs/ ref/publications/newsonline/33/stakeholder.htm 

•	 Rojas, Mary Hill. 2000. Working with Community-Based Conservation with A Gender Focus A 

Guide. Managing Ecosystems and Resources with Gender Emphasis (MERGE) Project: 

http://www.latam.ufl.edu/publications/merge/Case3Eng.PDF 

•	 Terralingua and World Wildlife Fund. Indigenous and Traditional Peoples of the World and 

Ecoregion Conservation: http://www.terralingua.org/index.htm 

•	 World Bank. Recent experience in collaborative forest management: A review of key issues: 

http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/essd%5Cforestpol

e.nsf/0/2A739220D0007B6C852567530060D924?OpenDocument 

­

70 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
11.1	 INDIGENOUS AND TRADITIONAL PEOPLES AND 

INDIGENOUS AREAS 

KEY QUESTIONS 

Do indigenous peoples’ organizations have the capacity to represent the community, and are they effectively 

engaged? 

Are indigenous people’s rights recognized and secured, particularly land and other property rights? 

DEFINITION 

Indigenous and traditional peoples are groups of people who have resided in a region for generations, and 

can be distinguished from the rest of the national community based on social, cultural, and economic 

conditions. Indigenous and traditional peoples have unique cultures that may be closely integrated with 

the local natural environment. These communities typically have a strong stake in the natural resources 

around them due to their dependence on these resources to sustain their livelihoods and cultures. These 

groups are often marginalized. Indigenous areas are those areas traditionally inhabited by these peoples. 

SIGNIFICANCE 

Indigenous and traditional peoples have unique cultures that may be closely integrated with the local 

natural environment. These communities typically have a strong stake in conserving the natural resources 

around them that sustain their livelihoods and cultures. This close relationship can make indigenous 

groups a powerful force for conservation. Areas used by indigenous peoples often have less habitat 

disturbance and more natural levels of biodiversity than areas that have become more completely 

incorporated into modern agricultural and industrial economic systems. 

Within indigenous communities there can be wide variation in ecological knowledge and sustainable 

management practices. For example, overhunting by indigenous people in areas of the Amazon Basin can 

lead to “empty forests,” which appear to have normal forest cover or plant composition, but which in fact 

suffer from local extinction of some game species. In addition, as indigenous and traditional peoples have 

become increasingly tied into market demands and cash-based economies, resource extraction rates are 

increasing and larger areas are being converted to agriculture to generate income for meeting basic needs. 

Because indigenous and traditional peoples control at least 25 percent of forest areas in developing 

countries, it is critical to engage them fully in the design, implementation, and evaluation of biodiversity 

and forest management programs. 

KEY QUESTIONS 

•	 Do indigenous peoples’ organizations have the capacity to represent the community, and are 

they effectively engaged? 

Indigenous communities are often marginalized, lacking the organizational capacity for political 

representation and advocacy at the national level. Government agencies or NGOs that address 

indigenous affairs exist in many countries, but they do not always represent indigenous concerns. 

Individual members of indigenous communities also may not be completely representative of their 

group. For example, older indigenous men may represent a community because of their age or social 

status, but they may not be able to fully represent the interests and concerns of youth or women. Care 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 71 
and transparency are needed to ensure full representation when working with indigenous communities 

and their representative organizations. 

Indigenous communities are increasingly organizing themselves to actively seek rights to their land 

and recognition of the importance of their culture and language. One area in which the capacity of 

indigenous groups requires strengthening relates to recent international agreements dealing with 

genetic resources, trade, and intellectual property rights (IPRs), including traditional knowledge. The 

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights 

(TRIPs) Agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO) raise issues of importance for 

indigenous peoples and for sustainable use and management of the biodiversity of their traditional 

lands. 

•	 Are indigenous people’s rights recognized and secured, particularly land and other property rights? 

Indigenous people have often been resettled, or had their traditional access to land and natural resources 

restricted when protected areas were established on their traditional lands. In the process, customary 

indigenous rights to resources have often been ignored, and basic human rights may have been violated. 

Protected areas established on indigenous lands without consent, and sometimes involving relocation, 

may not comply with international human rights standards or international law. The rights of 

indigenous, traditional, and marginalized stakeholder groups must be respected, and decision making 

should be transparent and build their capacity for effective participation and negotiation. 

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

72 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 

•	 Alcorn, Janis B. 2001. Good Governance, Indigenous Peoples, and Biodiversity Conservation: 

Recommendations for Enhancing Results across Sectors. Biodiversity Support Program: 

http://www.dec.org/pdf_docs/PNACP318.pdf 

•	 Borrini-Feyerabend, G. ed. Beyond Fences: Seeking Social Sustainability in Conservation, Section 

4.2, Indigenous Resource Management Systems: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/spg/Files/beyond_fences/bf_section4_1.html#4.2 

•	 Center for International Environmental Law. 2002. Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and 

Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Synergies for Sustainable Development: 

http://www.ciel.org/Publications/prights.pdf 

•	 Commonwealth of Australia. 2004. Working with Indigenous Knowledge in Natural Resource 

Management: Guidelines for Regional Bodies: 

http://www.deh.gov.au/indigenous/publications/guidelines.html 

•	 Coordinating Body for the Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations of the Amazon Basin (COICA): 

http://pubs.wri.org/pubs content text.cfm?ContentID=530 

•	 McKay, Fergus. October 2002. Addressing Past Wrongs: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas: 

The Right to Restitution of Lands and Resources: http://forestpeoples.gn.apc.org/Briefings/ 

Indigenous%20Rights/ips restitution protected areas oct02 eng.htm 

•	 Terralingua and World Wildlife Fund. Indigenous and Traditional Peoples of the World and 

Ecoregion Conservation: http://www.terralingua.org/index.htm 

•	 White, Andy, Augusta Molnar, Arvind Khare. Who Owns, Who Conserves, and Why It Matters: 

http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/publications/Who-Owns Who-Conserves Why-Matter.pdf 

•	 World Bank: http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/sdvext.nsf/63ByDocName/IndigenousPeoples 

•	 World Conservation Union. Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and Protected Areas: Guidelines, 

Principles and Case Studies: www.iucn.org/bookstore/indig-peop.htm 
11.2 TRADITIONAL OR LOCAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE
 

KEY QUESTIONS 

Does the activity recognize, understand, and strengthen local knowledge, conservation practices, and 

institutions for resource management? 

Does the activity recognize key experts of local ecological knowledge in the community? 

Does the activity seek mechanisms that allow traditional and modern ecological knowledge to supplement 

each other? 

Does the activity take knowledge ownership and intellectual property rights into account? 

DEFINITION
 

The term traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) is used to 

describe the knowledge, practices, and beliefs that traditional 

cultures use to conceptualize and interact with their environments. 

TEK encompasses everything from the observation of ecological 

processes to cultural norms for land management and resource 

allocation. This wealth of knowledge is acquired through 

experience and informal experiments, gathered over generations by 

observers whose survival depended on it. Some TEK is therefore 

“scientific” in that it is generally gathered through methods that are 

empirical, experimental, and systematic, although this may not be 

true for all TEK. Based on their traditional ecological knowledge, 

some traditional communities, especially indigenous groups, have 

managed their natural resources and ecosystems sustainably, 

protecting ecological integrity in order to survive. 

Two dimensions of TEK that are relevant to modern conservation 

include the ecological knowledge itself and the practices that result 

from that knowledge: 

Indigenous woman selling traditional 

remedies in La Paz, Bolivia. 

HANNAH FAIRBANK, USAID/EGAT/NRM/B 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 73 

•	 Knowledge. Local communities typically know something 

about the diversity and ecology of the species in their 

ecosystem. TEK often includes detailed ecological knowledge 

of rare, threatened, and endangered species. This knowledge varies significantly by gender, age, and 

status within a community. 

•	 Practices. Based on their ecological knowledge, communities often develop social norms that lead to 

sustainable uses of the ecosystems on which they depend. Traditional forest dwellers, for example, 

often develop systems for maintaining forest structure and function through selective harvesting of 

many tree species, and through managing forest gaps to allow the regeneration of certain earlysuccessional species. Practices such as these—involving management of complex, dynamic 

systems—are quite sophisticated even by the standards of modern scientific ecological management. 

Traditional practices may help conserve rare species. They can also lead to local extinctions of 

species. 
SIGNIFICANCE 

The ecological knowledge of local communities is often ignored or underestimated by conservationists 

and governments. In other cases, it may be overestimated or exaggerated by some anthropologists or 

NGOs. Neither extreme is appropriate, and diverse views must be weighed with caution. Natural 

resources management imposed by national governments may ignore local knowledge and management 

systems, based on the assumption that traditional systems are unscientific, and incompatible with 

conservation. Local institutions that govern natural resources and rely primarily on locally available skills 

and materials may be more sustainable and cost-effective than introducing technologies and management 

systems from outside. More importantly, incorporating TEK into activities contributes to local 

empowerment, increases self-sufficiency, and strengthens self-determination. Incorporating TEK gives an 

activity legitimacy within the community, and allows the community to solve local problems with local 

ingenuity and resources. 

Incorporating TEK into conservation has some limitations, of course. Local management systems may no 

longer be as functional and dynamic as in the past. A significant challenge to TEK is whether it can adapt 

to a rapidly globalizing world. While many local ecological practices have been sustainable in the past, 

they may no longer be adapting to changes such as increasing levels of use of natural resources driven by 

growing populations and links to external markets. As communities experience changes such as greater 

integration with market economies and labor migration to urban areas, some households may well 

become less dependent on local natural resources, and lose interest in, and commitment to, managing 

them sustainably. 

KEY QUESTIONS 

•	 Does the activity recognize, understand, and strengthen local knowledge, conservation practices, 

and institutions for resource management? 

Traditional ecological knowledge should be documented, evaluated, and used in managing natural 

resources where appropriate. TEK is usually transmitted through an oral tradition, including learning 

by doing, apprenticing with elders, observing, and experiencing. These processes of teaching, 

learning, and transmitting knowledge are critical components of TEK, where appropriate. 

•	 Does the activity recognize key experts of local ecological knowledge in the community? 

Elders in a community often are the most accomplished practitioners and disseminators of TEK, 

although different members of a community may have different knowledge about different parts of 

the ecosystem. Women and men often have different experiences with the environment. Women may 

have more knowledge concerning medicinal plants, seed stocks, and small game, and may be best 

able to identify indicator species of ecosystem health, while men may have more knowledge of large 

mammals. Different groups within a community may have knowledge about different species— 

fishermen know about the fish they catch, hunters about the species they hunt, healers about the 

plants they collect for medicine. 

•	 Does the activity seek mechanisms that allow traditional and modern ecological knowledge to 

supplement each other? 

TEK and modern scientific knowledge should be seen as complementary rather than competing kinds 

of knowledge. TEK can complement modern scientific knowledge by providing practical experience 

about living in a given ecosystem and responding to changes in it. Methods for involving local people 

and scientific resource managers in mutual learning should be supported whenever possible. The 

integration of traditional and modern science can strengthen participatory monitoring and adaptive 

management. 

74 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
•	 Does the activity take knowledge ownership and intellectual property rights into account? 

Conservation programs must be sensitive to the issue of intellectual property rights over TEK. As the 

recognition of the importance of TEK has increased, so has the concern by local people that 

knowledge is taken from them and used without their awareness, or their “prior informed consent.” 

When protected area management plans are developed, for example, local communities may be asked 

what resources they extract and from where. They may provide this information with the expectation, 

and often the reassurance, that it will be used to protect their rights to use the resources. Sometimes, 

however, the information may be used by external protected area managers to recommend restrictions 

on the use of resources without input from communities. All activities that incorporate TEK should 

have a plan for protecting that knowledge, respecting community wishes concerning its use and 

distribution, and for maintaining community control over their indigenous knowledge. 

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 75 

•	 American Association for the Advancement of Science Project on Traditional Ecological Knowledge: 

http://shr.aaas.org/tek/ 

•	 Brascoupé, Simon and Howard Mann. 2001. A community guide to protecting indigenous 

knowledge. Research and Analysis Directorate, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern 

Development. Ottawa: http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/ra/ind/gui e.pdf 

•	 Canadian International Development Agency. Handbook of CIDA project planning and indigenous 

traditional knowledge: http://www.kivu.com/CIDA%20Handbook/cidahome.html 

•	 Freeman, Milton M.R. The Nature and Utility of Traditional Ecological Knowledge: 

http://www.carc.org/pubs/v20no1/utility.htm 

•	 Gender, policy, and indigenous knowledge: 

http://www.generoyambiente.org/EN/secciones/subseccion 25 120.html 

•	 Hansen, Stephen and Justin VanFleet. July 2003. Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property: A 

Handbook on Issues and Options for Traditional Knowledge Holders in Protecting their Intellectual 

Property and Maintaining Biological Diversity. AAAS: http://shr.aaas.org/tek/handbook 

•	 Pandey, Deep Narayan. Traditional Knowledge Systems for Biodiversity Conservation: 

http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/t es/t es pande conserve.htm 

•	 Science and Development Network, Indigenous Knowledge Dossier: 

http://www.scidev.net/dossiers/index.cfm?fuseaction=dossierItem&Dossier=7&CFID=3050697&CF 

TOKEN=cba4b4cf8b9c7551-7A8B286D-B0D0-F03F-733F46FE0A93A531 

•	 Terralingua: http://www.terralingua.org/index.htm 

•	 Traditional Ecological Knowledge Prior Art Database (TEK * PAD): http://ip.aaas.org/tekindex.nsf 

•	 Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Marginalization, Appropriation and Continued Disillusion, a 

Speech by Leanne Simpson: http://www.snowchange.org/views/indigenous/leanne trad en.html 

•	 United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. Best Practices on Indigenous 

Knowledge: http://www.unesco.org/most/bpikpub.htm 

•	 World Bank. Integrating indigenous knowledge in project planning and implementation: 

http://www.worldbank.org/afr/ik/guidelines/index.htm 
12.0 SUSTAINABLE USE 
 

KEY QUESTIONS 

Are the many kinds of values and uses of biodiversity being adequately considered in the sustainable use of 

these resources? 

Do stakeholders have incentives to use natural resources sustainably? 

Is there agreement among stakeholders about sustainable levels of use? 

Are there criteria of sustainability, certification mechanisms, and monitoring instruments? 

Do negative sanctions and enforcement mechanisms exist? 

Is there a policy and legal framework to support sustainable use? 

DEFINITION 

Sustainable use refers to the uses of the biological products and ecological services of ecosystems in a 

manner and at a rate that does not reduce the system’s ability to provide those products and services to 

future generations. 

SIGNIFICANCE 

Many conservationists would agree 

with the IUCN that “use of wild living 

resources, if sustainable, is an 

important conservation tool because 

the social and economic benefits 

derived from such use provide 

incentives for people to conserve 

them.” (IUCN Policy Statement on 

Sustainable Use of Wild Living 

Resources, 2000: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/sustainabl 

euse/policy/polstateng.html). 

Community members, who have harvesting rights within the local 

national park, collect native grasses for thatching. 

BRUCE BYERS, ARD, INC. 

76 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
KEY QUESTIONS 

•	 Are the many kinds of values and uses of biodiversity being adequately considered in the 

sustainable use of these resources? 

The term sustainable use is sometimes used to refer only to the ecological sustainability of the direct 

material harvest of individuals of a given, valuable species. In southern Africa, for example, people 

talk about the sustainable use of elephant or impala; in Latin America they may be concerned with the 

sustainable use of mahogany. While this narrow concept of sustainable use is important in many 

cases, it also has limitations. Focusing only on what could be called biological products—the direct, 

material harvest of the most valuable species—can distract natural resources managers from taking a 

broader view of the many kinds of values and uses of biodiversity. Biodiversity includes many 

different elements or aspects (see Chapter 6, Choosing Conservation Priorities), and provides 

numerous products, services, benefits, and values. The use of a single species could probably not be 

called ecologically sustainable if the level of harvest by humans were so high that other, nonhuman 

species that also depended on the harvested species were threatened by that level of human use. 

Many conservationists are now realizing that the indirect, ecological services provided by ecosystems 

are one of the most valuable “uses” or benefits of biodiversity. These include maintaining water flows 

and quality, soil formation and nutrient cycling, degradation of wastes and pollution, pest and 

pathogen control, pollination, and climate regulation. The value of ecological services, however, is 

often unknown or unmeasured. Ecological services are not often marketed or traded, and so are 

usually unpriced. The result is that the ecological services provided by biodiverse ecosystems are 

often ignored or undervalued. The use of methods to estimate, measure, and even price the value of 

ecological services is growing. In many situations it is the nonmaterial values of biodiversity, such as 

its aesthetic, scientific, educational, and recreational potential, that attract tourists to an area and that 

therefore may have tremendous untapped economic value. 

Ignoring or undervaluing the ecological services and nonmaterial values of biodiversity can increase 

pressure for land or seascape conversion for example, because of the mistaken perception that other 

land uses are more valuable. Therefore, a broad understanding of the values, uses, and benefits of 

biodiversity can help to justify its conservation. 

•	 Do stakeholders have incentives to use natural resources sustainably? 

Sustainable use of natural resources can be a positive force for conservation because it can provide 

positive incentives to maintain wild species and habitats. In some situations where wild products and 

services have the potential to be traded or sold, there is a need to link the “producers” of those biotic 

products and services—that is, those people with tenure and authority to manage the resources—with 

markets for them. For example, the beneficiaries of clean and reliable water flowing from a forested 

catchment may be people in cities far downstream. In this case, payments from water users may 

provide an incentive for the owners and managers of the catchment forest to maintain it in a more 

natural state rather than clearing it for agriculture. Harvesters of a wild plant product from the 

rainforest might increase their incentive to sustainably manage the supply of that plant product if they 

could develop market links with distant buyers of products made from it. 

Markets can also create incentives to overharvest wild resources, however, so extra care must be 

taken to ensure sustainable harvest levels when wild products are marketed outside of the area where 

they are produced. Systems of monitoring and limiting harvest levels need to be established. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 77 
• Is there agreement among stakeholders about sustainable levels of use? 

Who sets the criteria used to determine sustainability? Sustainability has both an objective dimension 

derived from ecological science and a subjective dimension. Objectively, the supply of biological 

products and ecological services available for use is limited by the characteristics of both species and 

ecosystems. Ecological research is needed to determine the level of use or harvest that will be 

sustainable. On the basis of this ecological research, for example, quotas can be set for populations of 

harvested species to help ensure sustainability. Because dynamic ecological systems can never be 

understood, modeled, and predicted perfectly, ongoing monitoring of all affected ecosystem 

components is essential to allow adaptive reductions or increases in harvest levels. 

On a more subjective level, socially determined “limits of acceptable change” have also been 

proposed as a criterion of sustainability. That is, although ecosystems are always dynamic and 

changing even in the absence of strong human pressures, societies must decide how much humancaused change is acceptable. The “Malawi Principles” developed through the CBD are relevant here, 

as they are in natural resources management in general. In particular, the principle that “management 

objectives are a matter of societal choice” suggests that the criteria used to define “sustainable use” in 

practice require considerable debate and negotiation among stakeholders as well as credible 

ecological information. 

• Are there criteria of sustainability, certification mechanisms, and monitoring instruments? 

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) (see Chapter 27, 

International Treaties) is the main international mechanism for monitoring and “certifying” the 

sustainable use of species that enter into international trade as food, medicine, timber, skins, or pets. 

If a traded species becomes threatened or endangered, CITES can limit or ban the trade. As a party to 

CITES, the U.S. government is committed to upholding the treaty. Technical and financial assistance 

to help developing countries uphold their responsibilities to CITES is an important approach toward 

promoting the sustainable use of wild species. 

Sustainable forest management (SFM) is a developing concept that refers to the sustainable uses of 

natural forests. A number of international organizations are working to develop criteria and indicators 

for SFM, and some are attempting to set up global “certification” programs to audit and certify to 

consumers that wood and other forest products are produced in forests managed in responsible or 

sustainable ways. The following are a few general examples of the types of conditions forest 

certification frameworks may require: management meets all applicable laws; has legally established 

rights to harvest; respects indigenous rights; safeguards the environmental, social, and economic 

benefits of forests; protects biological diversity; has a written and implemented management plan; 

maintains high conservation value forests; and engages in regular monitoring. 

Some people are willing to pay more for goods that are produced sustainably and contribute to 

conserving biodiversity than for goods not produced in that way. Certification provides 

internationally recognized standards for reviewing agricultural systems and certifying that products 

are being grown and harvested in sustainable ways. Such systems now exist for organic produce, 

shade-grown coffee, sustainably harvested timber, and tourism. Certification has some potential to 

create a market niche in which sustainable products are financially viable. Significant barriers to 

certification still remain, however. In many markets, there is resistance to paying higher prices. In 

addition, certification only works effectively in countries with strong rule of law, enforcement 

mechanisms in place, and low levels of corruption. 

78 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
Whether for species or entire ecological communities such as forests, monitoring is needed to ensure 

sustainability. Because both the supply and demand sides of the equation are important for 

sustainability, both need monitoring. If monitoring detects unsustainable trends, adaptive responses 

can be developed. 

• Do negative sanctions and enforcement mechanisms exist? 

Achieving sustainable use can be very challenging, in part because in certain situations unsustainable 

exploitation of biodiversity can be in the short-term self-interest of a person, community, or country. 

If sustainable use is rewarding and motivating because the benefits exceed the costs, then conversely 

unsustainable use should be discouraged and penalized by seeking to make the costs exceed the 

benefits. Fines, seizures, and other sanctions can be used for this purpose. If local communities are 

the resource managers, community members may take on the role of monitoring resource use and 

enforcing the agreed-on limits of harvest to ensure sustainability. Such community forest guards, 

wildlife rangers, and resource monitors have been successful in many countries. At a larger scale, 

national laws and policies can also provide for the negative sanctions and enforcement mechanisms 

that help make sustainable use work. Finally, at the international level, agreements like CITES 

involve penalties and sanctions to help ensure compliance by member countries. 

Enforcement systems are only as strong as the weakest link in the enforcement chain (which includes 

detection, arrest, prosecution, and conviction). Despite common assumptions, poor enforcement is not 

always the result of too few enforcement agents and too few vehicles. While investing millions in 

agents and equipment may raise the probability of detection substantially, the impact of this 

improvement overall will be negligible if, for instance, prosecution rates continue to be very low. 

Investing resources to improve the rates of success of the weakest links in the system is more 

efficient, as it will yield a greater overall deterrent effect. 

• Is there a policy and legal framework to support sustainable use? 

Sustainable use, like any other approach to biodiversity conservation, requires a supportive enabling 

environment (see Chapter 14, Policy Development and Reform). At the local and national scales, this 

means good governance, secure land and resource tenure, access to national markets, and other 

factors discussed above. At the international scale, a supportive context for the sustainable use of 

biodiversity must include agreements that regulate trade in biotic products and help maintain 

incentives for conservation, such as the provisions on rights to genetic resources in the CBD or 

controls on trade in endangered species. Linking buyers with producers of sustainably managed biotic 

products in international markets can increase the economic incentives for sustainable use. In such 

cases, international certification programs that audit producers and assure buyers that the products 

they are buying are produced sustainably will help. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 79 
SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

80 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 

•	 Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable use of Biodiversity (of the Convention on 

Biological Diversity): http://www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.aspx?m=COP-07&id=7749&lg=0 

•	 Biodiversity Economics Library. Overview of forest management certification systems currently 

being used, proposed, and developed: http://www.biodiversityeconomics.org/business/topics-101­

04.htm 

•	 Emerton, Lucy. 2001. Community-Based Incentives for Nature Conservation. IUCN: 

http://biodiversityeconomics.org/pdf/topics-29-01.pdf 

•	 Forest Stewardship Council: http://www.fsc.org/en/ 

•	 Government of Australia. Sustainable Forest Management in Australia: 

http://www.deh.gov.au/commitments/wssd/publications/forests.html 

•	 International Union of Forestry Research Organizations, Food and Agriculture Organization, and 

Center for International Forestry Research: 

http://iufro.boku.ac.at/iufro/taskforce/tfsfm/resolutions.htm 

•	 Malawi Principles: 

http://www.oceansatlas.org/unatlas gifs/offsiteframe.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oceansatlas.co 

m%2Fworld fisheries and aquaculture%2Fhtml%2Fgovern%2Finstit%2Fintlagr%2Fmalawi.htm&c 

tn=13255&kot=documents 

•	 World Conservation Union. Sustainable Use Initiative homepage: 

http://iucn.org/themes/sustainableuse/ 

•	 World Conservation Union. Biodiversity Economics Site: http://www.biodiversityeconomics.org 

•	 World Conservation Union. Sustainable Use Specialist Group: http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/susg/ 
INTEGRATED CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (ICDPS) 
 

Although integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs) can take many forms, they all link biodiversity 

conservation in and around protected areas to the socioeconomic development of human settlements in these areas. 

The ICDP activities may involve alternative income generation, such as from ecotourism or NTFPs; sustainable use 

of biological resources; CBNRM; and provision of education or health services. The objective in linking conservation 

and development activities is to reduce threats to protected areas by improving the well-being of local communities. 

ICDPs were first initiated by conservation NGOs in the early 1980s. These programs were very popular and well 

funded by conservation organizations and development agencies. However, starting in the 1990s, the effectiveness of 

the ICDP approach was called into question. One of the shortcomings of the site based ICDP approach was its 

inability to address the influences of large scale, external political and economic forces on local communities and 

conservation. This was one of the many reasons why biodiversity conservation has moved toward a large scale, 

whole ecosystem approach, in which the larger context within which conservation takes place can more easily be 

seen and addressed. Although the term ICDP is not used frequently now, many conservation projects are still trying 

to link conservation with local development. Many lessons have been learned over the past 20 years about how to 

design better integrated conservation and development projects: 

Make and identify clear links and causation between conservation and development activities. 

Conduct threats analyses. 

Design projects at multiple scales, rather than focusing exclusively on one level, such as the local level or 

ecosystem level. 

Pay adequate attention to resolving internal conflicts and equity issues. 

Invest sufficient resources in new technologies, institutional innovations, and markets that would reduce the 

tradeoffs between conservation and development objectives. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION 

Brown, M. and B. Wyckoff-Baird. 1992. Designing integrated conservation and development projects.
 

Washington, DC: BSP: http://www.dec.org/pdf docs/PNABN360.pdf, or revised edition 1995:
 

http://www.bsponline.org/bsp/publications/bsp/designing_eng/icdp-latest.pdf
 

Hughes, R. and F. Flintan. 2001. Integrating Conservation and Development Experience: A Review and
 

Bibliography of the ICDP Literature. London: International Institute for Environment and Development:
 

http://www.ucc.ie/famine/GCD/ICDP sec.pdf
 

Mogelgaard, K. Helping People, Saving Biodiversity: An Overview of Integrated Approaches to Conservation and 

Development: 

http://64.224.182.238/resources/publications/HelpingPeopleSavingBiodiv/HelpingPeopleSavingBiodiv.pdf 

World Bank Group’s information on ICDPs: 

http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/envext.nsf/48ByDocName/ToolsIntegratedConservationDevelopmentProjec 

ts 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 81 
12.1 FORESTRY
 

KEY QUESTIONS 

What forest management activities could be incorporated into USAID mission programs to help sustain natural 

forest resources, conserve biodiversity, and yield economic benefits? 

What are the most effective ways that USAID can help strengthen forest governance at the local level and 

support the devolution of authority for forest management to communities? 

DEFINITION 

Forestry is the science and practice of managing trees and forests to provide a diverse range of benefits. 

The sustainable management, use, and conservation of natural forest ecosystems to maintain their health, 

flows of timber and non-timber forest products, nonmaterial values and benefits and the ecological 

services they provide is the type of forestry that will be discussed here, as an example of the sustainable 

use of biodiversity. 

SIGNIFICANCE 

Many people, especially those in rural parts of the developing world, depend on forests for their 

livelihoods, deriving food, medicine, fuel, construction materials, and monetary income from forests. 

Forests are also important for their spiritual and aesthetic values and are central to the cultural identities 

of many indigenous peoples. Local forest communities often serve as stewards, preserving and protecting 

areas rich in biological diversity. In other cases, economic conditions, settlement patterns, cultural 

changes, or population dynamics can drive what may have been traditionally sustainable use patterns into 

overexploitation of key species or habitats. Many local economies depend on the sale of forest 

commodities, especially timber, for revenue. Healthy forests also provide critical ecological services of 

local, regional, and global significance, such as climate regulation, carbon sequestration, watershed 

protection, soil conservation, storage, and recycling of organic matter and mineral nutrients. These 

services are the results of 

ecological processes that depend 

on the resilience of the forest 

ecosystem which rely on the 

maintenance of biological 

diversity. There are clear linkages 

to the maintenance or loss of 

biological diversity and 

environmental services. 

The greatest threat to biological 

diversity, especially in tropical 

regions, is the loss of forest cover 

as forest lands are converted to 

other land uses, especially due to 

agricultural expansion and forest 

degradation. Poor governance; 

weak legal, judicial and 

institutional capacity; and poor 

national policies that fail to 

Community tree nursery for producing seedlings of native tree species 

for reforestation, Michoacan, Mexico. 

BRUCE BYERS, ARD, INC. 

82 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
promote sustainable use or promote agricultural or frontier expansion may subsidize forest conversion to 

other uses. Tropical forests, and the biodiversity they contain, are also being destroyed due to destructive 

conventional forest practices and the extraction of unsustainable volume of timber. Illegal logging activities 

and corruption further accelerate the destruction of many of the world’s forests. But this pattern can be 

reversed and, if managed in an environmentally sound and socially and economically sustainable manner, 

forest ecosystems can provide many of the resource and environmental needs of today as well as those of 

future generations. A major challenge to protecting forests, the biological diversity they contain, and the 

environmental services they provide is the failure of the market to capture noncommercial values of forests. 

Forest and biodiversity conservation is dependent on conserving forest species and ecosystems within 

protected areas, as well as the sustainable use of forests in managed or production forests outside of 

protected areas. In these forests, logging is perhaps the most important forestry activity that influences the 

sustainability of the forest management because of its direct and indirect environmental impacts. 

Depending on the intensity, logging can change the mosaic of habitat types, alter species distribution and 

forest turnover rates, change soil nutrient and moisture quality, and influence aquatic communities 

downstream. The greatest harm to biodiversity associated with logging, however, often results from the 

indirect effects of logging—human encroachment and forest conversion that are facilitated by easy access 

on logging roads. 

As home to 70 percent of all terrestrial plants and animals, forests are critical to conserving biodiversity 

on a global scale. The sustainable management of natural forest resources, whether through the collection 

and marketing of NTFPs such as resins, rattan, or medicinal plants, or harvesting of timber products 

through reduced-low impact logging techniques, has the potential to support economic development both 

locally and nationally. This can be done while conserving and maintaining terrestrial biological diversity 

outside the boundaries of formal protected areas. However, efforts to maintain forest biodiversity existing 

outside protected areas—where the vast majority of the biodiversity is located—must be an integral 

component of a larger, landscape-level approach to biodiversity conservation and sustainable 

development. 

KEY QUESTIONS 

•	 What forest management activities could be incorporated into USAID mission programs to help 

sustain natural forest resources, conserve biodiversity, and yield economic benefits? 

The following are a few examples of sustainable forest management activities which, if well designed 

and adaptively managed, can yield both biodiversity conservation and income generation outcomes: 

− Foster public-private partnerships for the sustainable management of forest products (including 

timber and NTFPs); 

−	 Raise awareness and build capacity toward forest certification and certification of wood products; 

−	 Promote reduced impact logging in appropriate forest areas; and 

−	 Encourage the planting of indigenous species with market value on private or communal land, 

including timber and fuelwood plots. 

In Indonesia, USAID has catalyzed a groundbreaking public-private alliance to combat illegal 

logging, comprised of the U.S. government, the Government of Indonesia, international and local 

NGOS, research institutions, and over 17 private companies. These alliance partners work to: 

−	 Sustainably manage forests, 

−	 Track sources of wood, and 

−	 Link legal and sustainable wood producer groups to buyers (such as the Home Depot) and avoid 

forest destruction by building awareness among international banks and other financial institutions. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 83 
These activities have generated increasing incomes from sustainable forest products while conserving 

high biodiversity forests. 

•	 What are the most effective ways that USAID can help strengthen forest governance at the local 

level and support the devolution of authority for forest management to communities? 

By supporting the strengthening of local institutions and systems to manage forest resources 

including indigenous land use systems which offer firm foundations for sustainable natural resources 

management and livelihoods, village institutions that are accountable and recognized by government 

and local decision-making institutions, communities can significantly improve their local governance 

and equitable access to forest resources. 

In Ecuador and Colombia, USAID supports activities to involve indigenous groups in designing 

management plans for forest reserves, certifying forests and forest products for increased market 

value, resolving land and resource tenure issues, integrating traditional subsistence activities with 

sustainable natural resources management practices, learning through exchange visits, and sharing 

best management practices. The results of these activities have strengthened conservation of 

biodiversity, enhanced local and indigenous capacity, and improved income levels in the region. 

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

84 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 

•	 Biodiversity Support Program. Stories at the Forest Edge: The KEMALA Approach to Crafting Good 

Governance and Sustainable Futures: www.bsponline.org 

•	 Food and Agriculture Organization. Forestry biodiversity: 

http://www.fao.org/biodiversity/Forests eco en.asp 

•	 USAID. BOLFOR Project: http://bolfor.chemonics.net/ 

•	 USAID’s Foreign Assistance Act Section 118 Report: Tropical Forests: 

http://www.usaid.gov/our work/environment/forestry/index.html 
12.2 NON-TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS
 

KEY QUESTIONS 

Is the NTFP harvest sustainable? 

Are NTFP enterprises appropriate and desired by local communities? 

Are NTFP based enterprises developed using value chain analyses? 

Have the appropriate investments been made to ensure the success of an enterprise activity? 

What are the social implications of NTFP production? 

Has certification of the NTFP been considered? 

Has the NTFP enterprise been integrated with other economic activities? 

DEFINITION
 

The term “non-timber forest 

product” (NTFP) includes all 

biological materials other than 

wood that are extracted from 

forests for human use. This term 

is used here as the equivalent of 

“non-wood forest products.” 

NTFPs include plant products 

such as fruits, tubers, roots, 

seeds, leaves, resins, fungi, and 

grasses such as bamboo; and 

animal products such as meat and 

skins, insects, and fish and 

aquatic invertebrates. NTFPs 

may be used for subsistence or as 

a source of income. They may 

provide a wide range of direct 

material uses, including for food, 

fiber, medicine, building 

materials, fuel, and cultural and 

religious objects. Sustainable menthol production from cultivated mint in the buffer zone 

area of Bardia Reserve, Terai, Nepal. 

SAFIA AGGARWAL, ARD, INC. 

SIGNIFICANCE 

It is estimated that 80 percent of 

the population of developing countries relies on NTFPs for their primary health and nutritional needs 

(FAO, 1995. see Web link below.). Many rural communities trade NTFPs in local, regional, and 

international markets, and in some forest communities, poorer households get a substantial part of their 

incomes from NTFPs. NTFP enterprises have the potential in some cases to diversify and improve local 

economies. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 85 
At least 150 NTFPs, including honey, gum arabic, rattan, bamboo, cork, nuts, mushrooms, resins, 

essential oils, and plant and animal parts for pharmaceutical products are important export commodities 

and are significant in international trade. Trade of NTFPs, particularly for pharmaceutical uses, may form 

a significant portion of regional, and at times the national economy, comparable in some countries to 

annual timber sales. However, despite their widespread use and importance, NTFPs have generally been 

considered as minor or specialty products and not included in regional or national forest planning. 

Interest in NTFPs, like other kinds of sustainable use of biodiversity, has grown due to the increasing 

awareness of their potential role in biodiversity conservation and sustainable forest management. 

Managing forests for NTFPs can increase the long-term value of forests, and may provide a competitive 

alternative to other land uses such as timber harvest or agricultural production. 

KEY QUESTIONS 

• Is the NTFP harvest sustainable? 

Ensuring that harvest of NTFPs is sustainable for subsistence and commercial uses may be the 

greatest challenge. Sometimes little is known about the basic biology of an NTFP, such as basic 

information about its ecology, response to harvesting, or potential for domestication, semidomestication, or silviculture. Practical, participatory, and cost-effective methods of estimating the 

potential harvest level and monitoring the response to harvesting should be developed (for more on 

sustainable use, see Chapter 12). Please note that activities that support the sustainable use of NTFPs 

are not necessarily biodiversity conservation under USAID’s biodiversity code. All biodiversity 

conservation activities, in order to be attributed to the biodiversity earmark, must adhere to the 

biodiversity code and criteria, (for example, tight linkages between identified threats to biodiversity, 

and the proposed NTFP activity must be present). 

• Are NTPF enterprises appropriate and desired by local communities? 

NTFP investments may improve community capacity, access to natural resources, and income levels. 

However, it is important to understand what forest uses the community wants over the long term, and 

to help them develop sustainable uses. NTFP-based enterprises, for example, sometimes are proposed 

because, unlike wood-based enterprises, they may not require a large investment in equipment. 

However, NTFP-based enterprises may fail because the low volumes produced at the community 

scale require “scaling up” to supply markets of sufficient size to support them. 

• Are NTFP-based enterprises developed using value chain analyses? 

It is important to understand how the NTFP value chain operates, including production, collection, 

processing, storage, transport, marketing, and sales, in order to identify weak links in the commercial 

process. A market analysis must be carried out and a business plan developed to guide the enterprise. 

The rights, responsibilities, and returns should be clear for each actor in the chain. Rights should be 

clear and sufficient, responsibilities should be achievable and agreed upon, and returns must be 

sufficient to reward time and effort invested. 

• Have the appropriate investments been made to ensure the success of an enterprise activity? 

Success of NTFP enterprises is dependent on access to markets, availability of labor and human 

resources, availability of money for investment, strength of institutions, and the bargaining power of 

groups involved in the NTFP enterprises. Enterprise activities often require a great deal of support to 

the local communities, individuals, or institutions involved, including microfinance schemes, 

assistance with transportation, and training. 

86 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
•	 What are the social implications of NTFP production? 

The potential social impacts of an NTPF-based enterprise depend on who in the community gathers 

and processes the NTFP, how the resource is managed, and how the income is distributed. Women 

from poor households generally rely more on NTFPs for both subsistence use and income. An 

enterprise development activity may encourage additional members of the community to collect the 

NTFP, decreasing their availability to poorer households. Enterprise activities may also add to 

women’s time burdens, since they are often the ones who harvest NTFPs, and NTFP-based 

enterprises may actually decrease women’s incomes if men take over the enterprise. 

•	 Has certification of the NTFP been considered? 

Various forms of certification are available for some NTFPs that can increase their market value in 

certain circumstances. Most accepted certification schemes include criteria focused on the 

environmental, and to some extent, social aspects of forest product harvest, and involve “chain-ofcustody” tracking that follow a forest product through the value chain, from harvest, through 

processing or manufacturing steps, to marketing and point of sale. Organic certification focuses on 

production and processing stages for agricultural and agroforestry products, and sometimes NTFPs, 

as well as tracing products to ultimate point of sale. Fair trade certification focuses on fair 

compensation to the producers. Certification also increases producer costs, and will only increase 

market value if the market price is increased sufficiently to cover those costs. 

•	 Has the NTFP enterprise been integrated with other economic activities? 

To be successful, NTFP enterprises must be integrated with other economic activities. If a community 

depends too much on one enterprise, they may lack resilience when a harvest fails or market demand 

decreases. These possibilities should be taken into account when designing the activity. One way to 

address this is to diversify enterprise activities to avoid excessive dependence on a single NTFP. 

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 87 

•	 Belcher, Brian and K. Schreckenberg. 2003. Global network for forest science cooperation: NTFP 

Commercialization—A Reality Check: 

http://www.sfp.forprod.vt.edu/discussion/documents/Commercialization_as%20of%2016%20Sept%2 

02003.pdf 

•	 Biodiversity Support Program. Evaluating Linkages Between Business, the Environment, and Local 

Communities: http://www.bsponline.org/bsp/publications/bcn/analytical/analytical.pdf 

•	 CARPE Information Series #10. Non-timber forest products: Economics and Conservation Potential: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/africa/127/congo 10.html 

•	 Center for International Forestry Research. Non-Timber Forest Products: 

http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/Html/AR-98/Non-Timber.html 

•	 Center for International Forestry Research. Forests and non-forest timber products: 

http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/docs/_ref/aboutcifor/factsheet/ntfp.htm 

•	 Falls Brook Center’s NTFP pages: 

http://www.fallsbrookcentre.ca/forestry/NTFP_Web/ntfp_main.htm 

•	 Food and Agriculture Organization. Non-Wood Forest Products: 

http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/webview/fop/index.jsp?siteId=2301&sitetreeId=6366&langId=1&g 

eoId=0 
•	 Non-Timber Forest Products: http://valhalla.unep-wcmc.org/forest/ntfp/ntfps.cfm?displang=eng 

•	 Rainforest Alliance. Sustainable Botanicals Initiative: http://www.rainforestalliance.org/news/2002/news44.html 

•	 Rainforest Alliance. Annotated Collection of Guidelines, Standards, and Regulations for Trade in 

Non-Timber Forest Products and Botanicals: http://www.rainforestalliance.org/programs/forestry/trees/activities/botanicals-non-timber-products.html 

•	 United Nations Environment Program/World Conservation Monitoring Center. What are NTFPs? 

http://www.ntfp.org/definition.html 

•	 World Wildlife Fund. CARPE Program: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/africa/127/congo 10.html 

88 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
12.3 AGROFORESTRY 

DEFINITION 

Agroforestry straddles the line between natural resources management and agriculture. Agroforestry 

systems usually combine native species with domesticated crops, including domesticated tree crops such 

as fruits, palms, and nuts. Domesticated and wild animals are usually involved in these complex 

ecosystems as well. Agroforestry systems range across a spectrum from those dominated by wild species, 

such as the forest gardens of traditional rainforest peoples, to those mainly dominated by domesticated or 

introduced species. Agroforestry encompasses a wide variety of practices, including intercropping of trees 

with field crops or grasses, planting of trees on field boundaries or irrigation dikes, multistory and 

multispecies forest gardens or home gardens, and cropping systems using bush or tree fallows. 

SIGNIFICANCE 

Traditional agroforestry ecosystems are areas that include high-value commercial annual and perennial 

crops with wild species of subsistence and commercial value. Many agroforestry systems in the tropics 

partially mimic the structure of the surrounding forest. The overall species diversity in traditional 

agroforestry systems tends to be high, sometimes higher than in other natural ecosystems nearby. In the 

latter case, this is often due to the maintenance of pioneer species, the extension of the range of native 

species, or the introduction of nonnative species. This type of farm or agroforestry diversity must be 

differentiated from natural ecosystem diversity and biodiversity. 

Apart from its contributions to biodiversity conservation, agroforestry tends to be more ecologically 

sustainable than agriculture based only on annual crops, and also more economically profitable for 

farmers. However, pressure for greater productivity and profitability, caused by global market forces, is 

leading to the simplification of agroforestry systems, thereby reducing their species diversity. Promoting 

agroforestry on agricultural lands surrounding protected areas may benefit conservation in those areas. A 

word of caution, however; the profitability of some agroforestry systems can lead to incentives for 

increased conversion of natural forests, to the detriment of native biodiversity. Ideally, agroforestry can 

help to restore biodiversity to cleared forest lands, a form of afforestation or reforestation. Positive 

economic incentives for agroforesty, such as payments to farmers for the watershed protection afforded 

by forested land, or the elimination of subsidies for monocultures or cattle pastures, can help. In buffer 

zones of protected areas, management plans should ensure that agroforestry activities do not provide 

incentives for forest encroachment or degradation. 

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 89 

•	 Agroforestry Net: http://www.agroforestry.net/ and http://www.agroforestry.net/afg/book.html 

•	 Agroforestry Research Trust: http://www.agroforestry.co.uk/ 

•	 Glossary for Agroforestry (compiled and edited by Peter Huxley and Helen van Houten, International 

Center for Research in Agroforestry in 1997): http://www.bugwood.org/glossary/ 

•	 U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Agroforestry Center: http://www.unl.edu/nac/ 

•	 World Agroforestry Center: http://www.worldagroforestry.org/ 
12.4 FISHERIES 
 

KEY QUESTIONS 

How can the productivity of fisheries, both artisanal and commercial, be maintained or enhanced through 

investments in biodiversity conservation? 

How can the design of biodiversity conservation activities contribute to fisheries management, food security, 

and good governance? 

DEFINITION 

Fisheries involve the sustainable use, management, and conservation of wild fish and other aquatic animal 

species and their natural marine or freshwater ecosystems to produce high-protein food for humans. 

Because they generally involve harvesting from wild, natural populations, fisheries are a form of 

sustainable use of biodiversity. Aquaculture, the agricultural form of producing and harvesting aquatic 

organisms, is discussed in Chapter 15. 

SIGNIFICANCE 

Fisheries, both marine and freshwater, make important contributions to food security and nutrition in 

many countries. Fishing provides livelihoods and income, and may serve as a last line against starvation 

when crops fail. In many rural coastal areas, people both farm and fish. However, fisheries management 

and protection of critical fish habitat often are not incorporated adequately into agricultural, water, and 

food security programs. 

Marine fisheries account for 17 percent of the total annual 

animal protein consumed globally. In Indonesia, for example, 

60 percent of the animal protein comes from fish. The net 

foreign exchange earnings for fishery commodities by 

developing countries reached nearly U.S. $18 billion in 2001. 

But 75 percent of fisheries’ stocks are exploited at or above 

their maximum capacity and several have already collapsed due 

to overfishing. Improved fisheries governance is clearly 

needed. 

Coastal ecosystems contain some of the planet’s most 

biologically productive habitat, supporting a disproportional 

amount of economic output per unit of area, through fisheries 

and other productive activities. Over half of the world’s 

population lives and works in a coastal strip just 200 kilometers 

wide, and a full two-thirds—four billion people—are found 

within 400 kilometers of a coast. The productivity of many 

coastal ecosystems is threatened by increasing population 

pressures, habitat degradation, destructive fishing practices, 

loss of critical fish habitat, and sedimentation from poor land 

use practices. 

Fishing boat in Pucusana, Peru fleet. 

HANNAH FAIRBANK, USAID/EGAT/NRM/B 

90 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
KEY QUESTIONS 

•	 How can the productivity of fisheries, both artisanal and commercial, be maintained or 

enhanced through investments in biodiversity conservation? 

One of the most effective approaches for maintaining or enhancing fisheries productivity is to 

maintain the ecosystem health of critical fisheries habitats. This can be maintained by creating 

ecological reserves where no fishing is allowed (also referred to as no-take areas). Ecological no-take 

reserves and/or multipurpose marine protected areas are especially effective coastal management 

approaches that can result in early and sustained management dividends. When critical feeding, 

nursery, and spawning sites are protected, ecological reserves can improve fishery yields and help 

build and maintain healthy fish populations. Reserves have also proven very effective in the 

conservation of marine biodiversity and the generation of jobs and revenue through tourism. Such 

tools, when coupled with ongoing education, enforcement, and sustained livelihood schemes, offer 

the best hope for reducing or eliminating stress on coral reefs and other marine habitats vital for 

productive fisheries. 

USAID technical and financial resources were used in Indonesia to establish the country’s first 

marine protected area (MPA) in conjunction with the first District Integrated Coastal Management 

Plan and Provincial Coastal Law. USAID/Indonesia and the Government of Indonesia have found 

that MPAs are an invaluable tool to augment fisheries management, alternative livelihood, and coastal 

stewardship goals. At their request, scaling-up efforts have produced 29 MPAs involving 1,250 

hectares of marine and mangrove areas. An evaluation has determined that these sites save over U.S. 

$430,000 annually from destructive coastal and marine resource extraction activities. 

The establishment of networks of MPAs is an especially critical strategy for maintaining resource 

productivity, enhancing resiliency, and ensuring protection of marine and coastal habitats. Through 

the Global Conservation Program, USAID is supporting efforts of partners to establish resilient, 

functionally connected networks of MPAs in several major regions of the world. 

•	 How can the design of biodiversity conservation activities contribute to fisheries management, 

food security, and good governance? 

For coastal communities, fishery issues are a natural way to engage local communities in 

participatory, decision-making processes that can secure livelihoods, increase access to food, and 

empower self-reliance. USAID/Philippines is working to reverse declining fish populations and fish 

catches, and safeguard food security by advancing the practice of ecosystem-based fisheries 

management, while advancing sound coastal governance. Over the last 10 years, the Philippines has 

established a sound foundation for improved fisheries management; the adoption of coastal resource 

management (CRM) as a basic service by local government is the most recent benchmark of 

institutional awareness and capacity for managing marine and coastal ecosystems. 

The Fisheries for Improved Sustainable Harvest Project builds on this foundation and lessons learned 

from the Coastal Resources Management Project and other projects and programs to achieve the next 

crucial benchmark in managing fisheries and coastal resources in the Philippines. This benchmark 

calls for integrated fisheries management driven by informed, disciplined, and cooperative 

stakeholders at national and local levels of engagement. The project is expected to result in a 10 

percent increase in fish stocks in four target implementation areas by 2010. To achieve this, national 

and local activities are undertaken to build capacity, improve the national policy framework, and 

develop an informed constituency for fisheries management. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 91 
SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

•	 The Nature Conservancy. Global Marine Initiative: http://nature.org/initiatives/marine/ 

•	 University of Rhode Island/Coastal Resources Center: http://www.crc.uri.edu/ 

•	 USAID/EGAT/NRM: http://www.usaid.gov/our work/agriculture/landmanagement/index.html 

•	 USAID/Philippines: http://www.oneocean.org 

•	 World Bank. ProFISH project on reforming fisheries governance: 

http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/ardext.nsf/11ByDocName/NewsEventsEventsGlobalWorkshopo 

nSustainableFisheries 

•	 World Wildlife Fund. Ocean Rescue Initiative: http://www.worldwildlife.org/oceans/index.cfm 

92 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
12.5 ECOTOURISM
 

KEY QUESTIONS 

Have the potential social and ecological impacts of tourism been addressed in planning, and are they being 

monitored? 

Is ecotourism part of a broader strategy for sustainable economic development in the community? 

Who will benefit from ecotourism development? 

Does the project include education and awareness raising components for communities and tourists? 

DEFINITION 

Ecotourism is defined as “responsible 

travel to natural areas that conserves the 

environment and improves the wellbeing of local people.” (see 

http://www.ecotourism.org/index2.php? 

what-is-ecotourism). 

SIGNIFICANCE 

Ecotourism is a growing component of 

tourism, one of the largest growth 

sectors of the global economy, with 

increasing numbers of tourists seeking 

to visit remote areas with natural beauty 

and cultural uniqueness. Ecotourism is 

frequently promoted as a strategy for 

biodiversity conservation because it has 

the potential to generate revenues 

sustainably and create incentives for 

continued ecosystem conservation. It can, in some cases, be a more environmentally sustainable 

alternative to farming, logging, mining, or harvesting of wildlife. Care needs to be taken, however, as 

ecotourism activities can place a significant burden on local resources, particularly water and waste 

management services, and lead to degradation of the area if not implemented correctly. 

Damaraland Camp, Namibia. This ecotourism operation is a joint 

venture between the Torra Conservancy, a community based 

wildlife conservancy, and a private tourism company. 

BRUCE BYERS, ARD, INC. 

KEY QUESTIONS 

•	 Have the potential social and ecological impacts of tourism been addressed in planning, and are 

they being monitored? 

Ecotourism, as defined above, is tourism that is ecologically, culturally, and economically sensitive 

and sustainable. Nature-based tourism development, if it is not planned carefully, can have negative 

impacts on the biodiversity on which it depends. Development of roads, lodges, and other tourism 

infrastructure has led, in many cases, to habitat conversion and degradation of the ecosystems that 

attract tourists to being with. Increasing demand for energy and local natural resources from tourism, 

and the associated increase in waste and pollution, can create major environmental challenges. In 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 93 
coastal areas, poorly planned tourism development has resulted in damage to coral from anchors, 

pollution from improper disposal of solid waste, and excessive use of fresh water. 

Tourism development has also led, in many cases, to large influxes of people from surrounding areas 

seeking work in the tourism industry, and this can further increase demand for local resources. 

Tourism development, if not planned carefully, can also contribute to the erosion of local cultural 

traditions, affect access to natural resources, and reduce local quality of life. Given the potential 

negative ecological and social impacts of poorly planned tourism, it is important to anticipate adverse 

consequences, develop plans to address them, and monitor key social and ecological indicators as 

tourism develops. 

•	 Is ecotourism part of a broader strategy for sustainable economic development in the 

community? 

Because tourism is often a seasonal business, and usually influenced by far-off political, social, and 

financial trends, too much reliance on it can actually result in greater hardships for local communities. 

Ecotourism initiatives should be designed as part of a broader strategy for sustainable economic 

development in the community. 

•	 Who will benefit from ecotourism development? 

Benefits to local people from nature-based tourism have often been limited or nonexistent. In many 

places, tourism operations are owned and run by foreigners, and revenues go to these foreign 

investors, and to airlines and tour operators, providing few benefits to local communities. Revenues 

from this kind of tourism typically are not reinvested in the community or in conservation. This kind 

of tourism does not fit the definition of ecotourism given above. 

Economic benefits from ecotourism to local communities should be clearly linked to conservation of 

the biodiversity that draws the tourists. Local ownership and staffing should be encouraged and 

supported. Revenue-sharing mechanisms, such as tourism taxes and user fees, can be developed in 

order to ensure equitable sharing of the income from tourism. Some of the revenue generated from 

ecotourism may be put into collective benefits to the community such as water, community 

organizations, health, education, skills development, and training. 

•	 Does the project include education and awareness-raising components for communities and 

tourists? 

Ecotourists are typically interested in learning about the ecology and culture of the region they are 

visiting. Interpretation and education programs should target all stakeholders, including the tourists 

themselves. Nature-oriented tourists generally want to minimize their impact on an area and help 

conserve. Tour operators, lodge owners, nature guides, local communities, and anyone participating 

in the industry should be aware of the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of tourism. 

Ecotourism should provide an opportunity for local people to share their local ecological knowledge 

with visitors, develop community pride, gain a broader perspective, and recognize the global value of 

their local biodiversity. 

94 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 95 

•	 Ashley, Caroline, Charlotte Boyd and Harold Goodwin. March 2000. Pro-Poor Tourism: Putting 

Poverty at the Heart of the Tourism Agenda. Natural Resource Perspectives. No. 51. ODI: 

http://www.odi.org.uk/nrp/51.html 

•	 Big Volcano Ecotourism Resource Center: http://www.bigvolcano.com.au/ercentre/ercpage.htm 

•	 Conservation International: Ecotourism Program: 

http://www.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/programs/ecotourism 

•	 International Ecotourism Society: http://www.ecotourism.org 

•	 Pro-Poor Tourism, a Web site created by the Pro-Poor Tourism Partnership, a collaborative research 

initiative between the International Center for Responsible Tourism (ICRT), the International Institute 

for Environment and Development (IIED), and the Overseas Development Institute (ODI): 

http://www.propoortourism.org.uk/ 

•	 Rainforest Alliance. Sustainable Tourist Program: http://www.rainforestalliance.org/programs/tourism/index.html 

•	 The Mountain Institute. 2000. Community-Based Tourism for Conservation and Development: A 

Resource Kit: http://www.mountain.org/resources/docs/CBT-Kit-final-2003.pdf 

•	 United Nations Environment Program. Tourism: http://www.uneptie.org/pc/tourism/home.htm 

•	 World Conservation Union. WCPA World Parks Congress, Tourism Components: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/english/outputs/tourism.htm 

•	 World Tourism Organization: http://www.world-tourism.org 
13.0 ENVIRONMENTAL 

COMMUNICATION 

KEY QUESTIONS 

Have stakeholders been clearly identified for environmental communication initiatives? 
 

Is there an understanding of the motivations underlying environmental behavior?
 

Is the activity designed to influence motivations and build capacity? 
 

DEFINITION 

In a broad sense, environmental communication includes any 

activities that provide people with the information, motivation, 

and capacity to enable them to act as environmental stewards and 

to conserve biodiversity. 

SIGNIFICANCE 

The objective of environmental communication is to foster 

environmentally sustainable behaviors with the following goals: 

(1) change current human behaviors and interactions with the 

natural environment; and (2) give people the background 

knowledge, awareness, motivation, and skills needed to make 

environmentally sustainable choices later. Accomplishing 

these goals requires much more than providing information 

about the environment. For example, the following activities 

build on and extend traditional types of communication in support 

of conservation: social marketing, outreach, and public relations 

techniques. 

Key stakeholders should be involved in the design of 

environmental communication activities from the very beginning 

of the process. All are needed to help identify the actions and 

practices that threaten biodiversity and to learn about the 

motivations for those critical behaviors (see Chapter 4, Involving 

Stakeholders). 

Poster showing uses of native plants and 

trees at an environmental education fair 

organized by Municipality of Tarija, 

Bolivia, with help from Prometa. 

USAID/Bolivia, together with TNC, have 

been working with Prometa to support 

biodiversity conservation, watershed 

protection, and sustainable livelihoods. 

BRUCE BYERS, ARD, INC. 

96 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
KEY QUESTIONS 

• Have stakeholders been clearly identified for environmental communication initiatives? 

The appropriate stakeholders to involve in environmental communication activities are usually one or 

more subgroups within a community or population that impact biodiversity and whose behavior may 

be changed. These individuals may include members of a local community, a business or industry, or 

the government. By identifying the people or groups who engage in behaviors that impact 

biodiversity, activities that aim to change behavior can then be identified. 

Some education and outreach activities may be designed to raise awareness and provide knowledge 

about the environment to the general public. For example, traditional or formal environmental 

education may be designed for children or young adults in school settings. In this case, the goal is to 

build an informed future citizenry that will be more likely to make biodiversity-friendly choices. In 

general, this is a relatively slow process, taking place over a generation or more. 

In addition to activities that aim to provide knowledge or change behavior, training programs are 

needed to provide a steady supply of conservation professionals, technicians, and practitioners. 

Wildlife management, forestry, and conservation biology programs at the university level contribute 

to a population’s capacity to engage in effective conservation. Training initiatives for classroom 

teachers, ecotourism guides and interpreters, game guards, or plant collectors involved in biodiversity 

prospecting, for example, can also play a role in building a population with environmental literacy 

and a commitment sustainable stewardship. 

• Is there an understanding of the motivations underlying environmental behavior? 

To develop activities that will influence behaviors that threaten biodiversity, it is necessary to 

understand what motivates those behaviors. What are the barriers to the adoption of more sustainable 

practices? Key factors that can determine the behaviors of target audiences can include knowledge, 

values, social norms, cultural factors, options, skills, economics, policies, and laws. 

• Is the activity designed to influence motivations and build capacity? 

Once the key factors that motivate behaviors affecting biodiversity are identified, activities can be 

designed to influence those motivations and build capacity. For example, if stakeholders (e.g., 

government, industry, community) do not know that their behavior is damaging or unsustainable, 

providing information may be enough to change the behavior. Knowledge and awareness are 

relatively simple to address through education and communication programs, but these will only be 

effective if lack of awareness and knowledge is the critical barrier to the adoption of new, 

biodiversity-friendly practices. 

One explanation for a wide range of biodiversity-threatening practices common in most societies 

today may be a lack of general knowledge and understanding about what biodiversity is and why it is 

valuable. As discussed elsewhere in this Guide, biodiversity is complex, a system with many 

interdependent elements (see Chapter 2, The State and Importance of Biodiversity). In the past, the 

concept of biodiversity has sometimes been presented in a simplistic way, and equated only with 

species diversity. Without public education and communication about biodiversity, it is not surprising 

that people do not have an understanding of the concept. Likewise, biodiversity is valuable for many 

reasons, some of which are not immediately apparent, (e.g., ecosystem services and nonmaterial 

values), therefore raising public awareness of the various values of biodiversity is critical. 

Unfortunately, lack of knowledge is often not the reason that people engage in activities that threaten 

biodiversity. For example, they may lack viable options and alternatives that otherwise would not 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 97 
harm biodiversity, or they may lack the skills or means to take advantage of options that do exist or 

just may not care about the negative environmental impacts their behaviors are having. 

USAID programs can make use of several kinds of activities that build on and extend more traditional 

types of education and communication tools in support of conservation, such as: 

−	 Social marketing: This is the application of models and techniques derived from commercial 

marketing and from behavioral psychology to promote new behaviors. Social marketing has been 

used to promote healthier lifestyles (e.g., eliminate tobacco use, encourage better diets, promote 

less risky sexual behavior) and is being applied in some cases to promote changes in behaviors 

that threaten biodiversity. For example, media coverage of illegal logging and their impacts are 

being used in Indonesia to mobilize local communities to report illegal logging activities. 

−	 Outreach: This usually 

refers to efforts to “reach 

out” to and enlist the 

support of other 

stakeholders for 

conservation activities. 

−	 Public relations: This can 

be thought of as a special 

dimension of 

environmental 

communication, in which 

government agencies or 

other organizations with 

environmental management 

responsibilities 

communicate with the 

public to encourage their 

support and cooperation. 

This might involve 

informing the public about 

laws and regulations 

governing use of ecological 

resources and explaining 

the need for such laws. 

In addition, it is important to use environmental education approaches in concert with other strategies 

and interventions that may more directly address some of the key identified barriers to behavior 

change. For example, if lack of economic alternatives prevents people from conserving a biodiverse 

ecosystem, development of a compensation scheme for environmental services, coupled with 

increased awareness, may make behavioral change more appealing. 

A local TV crew interviews a boy scout during a media event at Lawachara 

National Park in Bangladesh. Organized by USAID’s local partners, scouts 

went on a hike through the protected forest with a naturalist and then 

were interviewed by local media about their experience. 

PATRICK SMITH, USAID/NRM/B 

98 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 99 

•	 Booth, Elizabeth Mills. 1996. Starting with Behavior: A Participatory Process for Selecting Target 

Behaviors in Environmental Programs. Washington, DC: GreenCOM: 

http://www.greencom.org/greencom/papers.asp?page=17 

•	 Byers, Bruce A. 1996. Understanding and Influencing Behaviors in Conservation and Natural 

Resources Management. Washington, DC: BSP: 

http://www.wwfus.org/bsp/publications/africa/understanding eng/understanding1.html 

•	 Byers, Bruce. 2000. Understanding and Influencing Behaviors: A Guide. BSP: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/bsp/behaviors eng/behaviorsguide eng.pdf 

•	 Conservation International. Global Awareness: 

http://www.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/programs/awareness 

•	 Day, Brian A., and Martha C. Monroe, eds. 2000. Environmental Education & Communication for a 

Sustainable World: Handbook for International Practitioners. Washington, DC: Academy for 

Educational Development: http://www.greencom.org/greencom/books/eec handbook.asp 

•	 Ecological Society of America. Communicating Ecosystem Services Project: 

http://www.esa.org/ecoservices/ 

•	 GreenCOM. Strategic Participatory Communications: http://www.greencom.org/index.asp 

•	 North American Association for Environmental Education. International Program: 

http://naaee.org/index.php 

•	 National Association for Interpretation: http://www.interpnet.org 

•	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Education: 

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/programs.htm 

•	 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Educating for Conservation: http://www.fws.gov/educon.html 

•	 World Conservation Union. Commission on Education and Communication: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/cec/cec/home page.htm 

•	 World Wildlife Fund: http://worldwildlife.org/windows/index.cfm 
14.0 POLICY DEVELOPMENT 

AND REFORM 

KEY QUESTIONS 

Does the policy clarify management authority and responsibility? 

Does the policy resolve conflicts between traditional and modern management systems? 

Does the policy have effective implementation and enforcement mechanisms? 

Does the policy link with economic policies through environmental accounting mechanisms? 

DEFINITION 

The policies, laws, and regulations of 

governments or other organizations 

provide the framework and context in 

which people make decisions and take 

actions that affect biodiversity both 

positively and negatively. To support 

conservation, policies must exist or be 

developed that provide users of biotic 

resources and other biodiversity 

stakeholders with incentives to manage 

biodiversity sustainably. 

Raja Ampat, Limalas. Sago harvest is a main product from Papua. 

USAID supports TNC s work in marine conservation in this region. 

ANDREAS H. MULJADI, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY INDONEISA, 2004 

SIGNIFICANCE 

Conserving biodiversity requires a 

supportive policy environment which 

creates incentives for the conservation

and stewardship of ecosystems and 

disincentives for their degradation. 

There are many entry points for supporting policy development and reform. Some activities that could 

help create or change policies or laws that affect the conservation of biodiversity include: 

•	 Developing national programs for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, such as 

the National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans required for all parties to the Convention on 

Biological Diversity (this includes all USAID assisted countries except for East Timor and Iraq); 

•	 Establishing national systems of protected areas; 

100 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
•	 Modifying national income accounts so that they reflect the economic loss that results when 

biological resources are degraded and biodiversity is lost; 

•	 Integrating biodiversity conservation into relevant sectoral and cross-sectoral plans, programs, and 

policies, including Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs); 

•	 Identifying conflicts between laws and regulations affecting biodiversity, and harmonizing the laws 

and regulations through policy reform; 

•	 Ensuring that policies concerning forests, marine, and freshwater ecosystems are compatible with 

biodiversity conservation (for example, reform forestry policies that encourage resource degradation 

and the conversion of forest ecosystems to other less valuable uses); 

•	 Reforming agricultural policies that provide incentives for unsustainable agricultural practices and 

land conversion; 

•	 Establishing mechanisms to respect and maintain the traditional ecological knowledge and practices 

of indigenous and local communities; and 

•	 Managing living resources through new forms of community-state partnership and cooperation. 

Policymakers need to involve stakeholders in the development of policies that will create an enabling 

environment for biodiversity conservation. Conditions can vary widely even within a single country. 

Policies—and the laws, rules, and regulations that define them in practice—must be developed to fit local 

conditions. Stakeholders are more likely to support policies and laws for which they have been able to 

participate in an open and accountable policy development process. Where stakeholders do not have a 

role, or if some stakeholders can dominate the process at the expense of others, disputes are likely to 

occur. 

Effective conservation requires a mosaic of land uses, management regimes, and sustainable levels of 

resource use. To create an enabling environment for conservation, the political and legal ties between 

these elements need to work together rather than against each other. Appropriate policies, laws, and 

regulations are needed to support: 

•	 Protected areas; 

•	 Community-based conservation; 

•	 Sustainable use of natural resources; 

•	 Land and resource tenure; 

•	 Conservation of threatened and endangered species; 

•	 Protection of watersheds, streams, rivers, and wetlands; and 

•	 Management of coastal zones. 

Policies in other sectors, such as transportation, urban and industrial pollution, taxation, national and 

international trade, population, education, and health, also have major effects on and implications for the 

conservation of biodiversity. 

International treaties can encourage and motivate national policy development, reform, and 

implementation. National policies in turn, should support a country’s international obligations under the 

conventions and treaties to which the country is a party (see Chapter 27, International Treaties). 

Countries need to have policies and the accompanying legal instruments that implement these treaties 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 101 
within their territory. Either policy development or policy reform may be needed depending on 

circumstances. 

Some international treaties relevant to biodiversity conservation are: 

•	 The Convention on International trade of Endangered Species (CITES) requires policies and laws 

regarding import/export control of specific threatened or look-alike species. 

•	 The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) obligates parties to develop national action 

plans/strategies for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. 

•	 The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, commonly referred to as the Ramsar 

Convention, requires parties who are to signatories to designate at least one national wetland for 

conservation. 

•	 The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) requires developing country 

parties requesting assistance to develop national action plans to address land degradation and 

desertification. 

•	 The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) also requires a national 

action plan. Many other international and regional treaties also require action by sovereign states. 

KEY QUESTIONS 

•	 Does the policy clarify management authority and responsibility? 

Understanding the chain of authority for managing biodiversity and natural resources in a given 

situation is key to creating policies and laws that support conservation. Clarifying management 

authority may be a first step in policy development or reform. Issues needing clarification may 

include land tenure, user rights (such as rights to harvest or use water, fish, trees, wild animals, or 

grazing lands), common property resources, privatization, and decentralization and devolution. 

Tenure refers to the authority, rights and responsibilities of using and managing property or resources. 

The individual, traditional or indigenous community, private entity, or government authority with 

tenure over some aspect of biodiversity is the owner or manager of that resource, whether it is a 

forest, river, coastal zone, or species. Tenure can be complicated. For example, land may be owned, 

used, and managed by private individuals, but the wild animals inhabiting that land may be “owned” 

and managed by a state wildlife agency. 

Resources owned and managed in common, generally by a community, are sometimes called common 

property or common pool resources. Common property resources require appropriate rules to control 

use and access, and a strong community consensus about resource use in order to mitigate 

unsustainable harvesting from an unmanaged, unregulated commons (the so-called “tragedy of the 

commons.”) 

Natural resources can also be owned and managed privately by individuals or corporations. 

Privatization of biodiversity resources may improve incentives for conservation under some 

circumstances, especially where private owners are willing to make investments to managing natural 

resources that a communal group may be unwilling to make. Privatization does not automatically lead 

to conservation and sustainable use, however—some private resource managers may have a shortterm economic interest in “mining” a potentially renewable natural resource, converting it to private 

wealth, thereby destroying its option value for future generations. 

Concessions and leases are mechanisms for temporarily granting some level of private control over 

publicly owned land or biodiversity resources. These should be developed in a legal and transparent 

102 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
way, and long-term sustainable management should be an objective. Leases could allow for exclusive 

use of part of a national park for ecotourism, for example. Concessions for logging, sport hunting, 

fishing, tourist lodges, or river rafting are other examples. Concessions are a kind of temporary 

privatization, but they can also be viewed as public-private partnerships, designed to provide 

economic incentives for long-term conservation. 

Policies regarding such concessions are critical for making them serve the purpose of biodiversity 

conservation. Sustainable use, whether of direct material or nonmaterial values of biodiversity, must 

be the bottom line. Lease length can have a major influence on incentive structures. If leases are too 

short, private investors may conclude that they cannot recover their costs. For example, a tourism 

concessionaire may be reluctant to build a lodge unless the lease is long enough to allow cost 

recovery, or a logging concessionaire may be reluctant to build a network of roads if the lease is too 

short to allow road-building costs to be recovered from harvesting timber. On the other hand, short 

leases could lead to unsustainable harvests—the “cut and run” syndrome in logging, for example— 

unless there is adequate monitoring and enforcement of harvest levels and rates. 

Increasingly, private companies are developing partnerships with local communities and local 

governments rather than just central government agencies. This is a result of increasing devolution of 

decision making to the local level. 

Devolving management authority over resources to local governments or communities is an 

increasingly used policy reform aimed at improving local decision making, increasing economic 

opportunities, and promoting sustainable management of resources. As in privatization, the rationale 

for decentralization is to improve incentives for conservation by putting the management authority 

and responsibility into the hands of stakeholders at the most relevant level. In practice however, many 

decentralization and devolution initiatives have occurred without transferring all relevant rights to the 

local decision makers. In other cases, devolution has resulted in appropriation of local decisionmaking powers. Appropriate decentralization and devolution initiatives need to carefully take into 

account what is being decentralized or devolved, as well as the resulting transfer of rights, 

responsibilities, and decision-making powers. 

In addition, it is important to keep in mind that national government agencies are one kind of 

stakeholder, and their interests in biodiversity conservation may not be the same as other stakeholders 

at more local levels. Because of this, they may not favor decentralization of management authority. 

Co-management (see Chapter 11, Community-Based Conservation), in which a central government 

agency shares management authority with a local group, is an example of limited decentralization and 

may provide a solution in some cases. If subnational government agencies or community groups 

control the funding for their management operations, they will be in a stronger position relative to a 

central government agency and more capable in practice of actually assuming the responsibilities of 

decentralization. To the extent that they depend on higher levels of government for funding, their real 

authority may be reduced accordingly. 

• Does the policy resolve conflicts between traditional and modern management systems? 

Traditional land and resource tenure systems often exist alongside more recent legal and state-based 

systems. Although different stakeholders may view different systems as the most legitimate, the 

existence of more than one system does not necessarily imply conflict between them. The two 

systems sometimes operate in different places. For example, the state-based system might be 

dominant in urban areas, whereas traditional tenure systems may operate in rural areas. Where 

different stakeholders use different systems to make decisions about resource use in the same area, 

the conflict between systems can lead to unsustainable exploitation of resources. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 103 
Local residents, whether fishers, hunters, farmers, irrigators, or pastoralists, may have developed their 

own management systems (e.g., authorities, laws, rules, taboos) governing natural resources use. 

Traditional and locally crafted management systems are not likely to be uniform across even small 

areas, much less across a whole country. They represent the outcome of processes that reflect local 

scarcities, power relationships, personalities, and other factors. Attempts to build on them should be 

evaluated carefully, as this will often involve legitimizing a mosaic of local legal systems, thereby 

complicating the development of general national legislation. However, locally developed rules are 

indicators of local conservation values that deserve respect and recognition in policies and legislation. 

National governments can support efforts of self-governing user groups and communities by 

incorporating local management rules into national systems (e.g., community “by-laws”). The 

knowledge that modern legal systems will back up traditional decisions greatly strengthens the 

authority of traditional resource managers. 

• Does the policy have effective implementation and enforcement mechanisms? 

Changes in management authority through policy reform, new laws, or enforcement of laws not 

previously enforced may require communication campaigns (see Chapter 13, Environmental 

Communication). If people are not aware of policies and laws, or do not understand the reasons for 

them, the laws and policies may generate conflict and may be especially difficult to implement and 

enforce. New policies, laws, and rules should be translated into local languages and disseminated 

through diverse media, including those that do not require literacy (as do print media like 

newspapers) or access to certain technologies (such as computers). Radio or television programming 

can deliver messages to illiterate target audiences. 

In many developing countries, state capacity to implement policies and enforce laws and regulations 

is limited. Disgruntled stakeholders often find ways to ignore or subvert laws. On the other hand, 

stakeholders who understand and support laws contribute greatly to their application and 

enforcement. Co-enforcement systems that involve local stakeholders, such as the use of community 

forest or wildlife guards, are often effective when there is local support for policies, laws, and 

regulations. 

• Does the policy link with economic policies through environmental accounting mechanisms? 

Linking conservation and economic policy through the use of environmental accounting mechanisms 

contributes to sustainable natural resources management and biodiversity conservation. 

Environmental accounting is the effort to modify a country’s national income accounts, from which 

the gross domestic product (GDP) and gross national product (GNP) are calculated, to take into 

account the value and the depletion of natural resources and environmental services. The use of 

environmental accounts allows for the tracking of both physical resources and their monetary value in 

a system that is compatible with the traditional national income accounts. This enables the 

environment to be integrated into economic analysis and decision making, making it easier to readily 

monitor, analyze, and evaluate the links and tradeoffs between economic and environmental goals. 

Many developing countries have started to establish national income and environmental accounts. 

These efforts have received extensive technical and financial support from both the United Nations 

and USAID. The United Nations has assumed the overall responsibility for developing rules and 

structure for environmental accounting. The methods proposed cover stocks and flows of renewable 

and nonrenewable natural resources, pollutant emissions, expenditures on environmental protection, 

and other topics. For the most part, the methods covered do not include valuation of nonmarketed 

ecological services or the impacts of environmental degradation, which can in some cases far exceed 

market values of biodiverse systems. The components of the accounts that may be useful in a given 

country depend on its environmental concerns and the extent to which its economy depends on 

104 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
natural resources. Environmental valuation analyses may be useful in some cases to help decision 

makers understand the extent of these values in general, and to influence specific policies or 

management approaches in particular. 

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

•	 For more information on environmental accounting, see: 

–	 Environmental Management Accounting: http://www.emawebsite.org 

–	 Environmental Protection Agency—Environmental Accounting: 

http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/acctg/resources.htm 

–	 Hecht, Joy E. Spring 1999. Environmental Accounting: Where We Are Now, Where We Are 

Heading in Resources for the Future, Issue 135: http://www.rff.org/rff/Documents/RFFResources-135-enviroaccount.pdf 

•	 For more information on decentralization, see: 

–	 Ostrom, E. 1997. Local Institutions for Resource Management, in Beyond Fences: Seeking Social 

Sustainability in Conservation, G. Borrini-Feyerabend, (Ed.), Gland, Switzerland: IUCN: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/spg/Files/beyond fences/bf section4 1.html#4.3 

–	 Wyckoff-Baird, B., A. Kaus, C. Christen, and M. Keck. 2001. Shifting the Power:
 

Decentralization and Biodiversity Conservation. Washington, DC: BSP:
 

http://www.bsponline.org/bsp/publications/aam/shifting/Shift Power 00.pdf 

–	 World Resources Institute Project documents. Environmental Accountability in Africa:
 

Decentralization: http://governance.wri.org/project background docs.cfm?ProjectID=44
 

–	 Murphree, M. 1997. Beyond Fences: Seeking Social Sustainability in Conservation (Section 

4.14: http://www.iucn.org/themes/spg/Files/beyond fences/bf section4 4.html#4.14 

•	 For more information on management systems see: 

–	 Alcorn, Janis B. 1997. Indigenous Resource Management Systems, in Beyond Fences: Seeking 

Social Sustainability in Conservation, G. Borrini-Feyerabend, ed. Gland, Switzerland. IUCN: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/spg/Files/beyond fences/bf section4 1.html#4.2 

–	 Alcorn, Janis B. 2001. Indigenous Peoples and Biodiversity Governance: The Hundestad 
 

Recommendations for Donor Best Practices. Washington, DC: BSP:
 

http://www.bsponline.org/bsp/publications/asia/hundested/hundested.html 

–	 Weber, R., J. Butler, and P. Larson, eds. 2000. Indigenous People and Conservation
 

Organizations: Experiences in Collaboration. Washington, DC: BSP:
 

http://www.bsponline.org/bsp/publications/africa/indigenous conservation/indigenous conservation.p 

df 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 105 

IV. CROSS-SECTORAL 

LINKAGES FOR BIODIVERSITY 

CONSERVATION 

15.0 Agriculture
 

16.0 Biotechnology
 

17.0 Conflict
 

18.0 Conservation Enterprise Development 
 

19.0 Democracy and Governance
 

20.0 Global Climate Change
 

21.0 Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Response
 

22.0 Human Population and Health, including HIV/AIDS
 

23.0 Nonrenewable Extractive Industry: Energy and Mining
 

24.0 Urban Issues
 

25.0 Watersheds and Water Resources
 

Buttress of an old growth tropical tree growing in the heart of the Congo 

River Basin, Equateur Province, Democratic Republic of the Congo. 

DR. BRUCE MARCOT, US FORESTRY SERVICE 
CROSS-SECTORAL LINKAGES FOR 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION 

This section addresses ways in which biodiversity conservation is and can be linked, either programmatically 

or substantively, with other sectors in USAID’s portfolio of development activities. Programmatic linkages 

describe mechanisms for connecting sectors within a program or activity, such as coordinating activities in 

the field. A health project and a conservation project may be working in the same geographic area and share 

resources and field staff, for example. Substantive linkages occur when sectors are conceptually linked. A 

watershed restoration project that was designed jointly by staff from the health and conservation sectors to 

integrate the provision of clean water and the conservation of forest biodiversity is an example of these types 

of linkages. 

It is nearly impossible to be aware of every cross-sectoral activity that might affect biodiversity. Mission 

staff and biodiversity program managers should develop an awareness of the cross-sectoral linkages between 

biodiversity conservation and other sectors. They can then develop activities that address the linkages in 

order to achieve mutually beneficial results in each sector. They must prioritize, deciding which crosssectoral linkages can be addressed, and create partnerships and activities to do so. 

The following chapters give USAID mission staff and managers a place to begin considering cross-sectoral 

linkages and approaches for biodiversity conservation. 

Each chapter provides: 

•	 A description of some of the substantive linkages and dynamics between the sectors; 

•	 Questions and issues that mission staff and other users of this Guide are advised to consider in the 

management, review, and design of cross-sectoral activities for biodiversity conservation; 

•	 Examples of USAID-supported projects that have linked sectors; and 

•	 Web resources for more information. 

Important issues such as water resource management, poverty alleviation, and the mainstreaming of gender 

have been addressed in this section as crosscutting themes. These themes, because of their importance and 

pervasiveness, arise and should be addressed throughout and across multiple sectors. Water issues (aside 

from the Watershed/Water Resources section), for example, concern the urban sector (in the context of 

supply and sanitation), agriculture (irrigation and aquaculture), fisheries (habitat and quality), and so on. 

Similarly, gender and poverty come up in multiple sectors. Taking a cross-sectoral approach to biodiversity 

conservation allows for these central themes to be incorporated and addressed throughout conservation 

activities. 

Please note: all USAID programs and activities should strive to be “biodiversity friendly” but may not 

qualify as biodiversity conservation within the Agency’s biodiversity code (see USAID’s Definintion of 

Biodiversity Programs). Further, some examples and programs presented in this section (and the Guide as 

a whole) are “biodiversity friendly,” but would not necessarily qualify as biodiversity conservation within 

the Agency’s biodiversity code per se. (For the most up-to-date information on the biodiversity code and 

definition, USAID employees may access the USAID Intranet). 

108 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
15.0 AGRICULTURE
 

KEY QUESTIONS 

What strategies can USAID managers use to increase agricultural production and also conserve biodiversity? 

How can USAID staff support policies and build capacity to promote biodiversity conservation in conjunction 

with agricultural development? 

How can rangeland management and pastoralism help to conserve biodiversity? 

How can aquaculture help to conserve biodiversity? 

What measures are being taken in the design and implementation of aquaculture operations to prevent or 

mitigate negative impacts on biodiversity? 

The quadrupling of the world’s population over the last century has in large part been fueled and 

supported by a constantly growing food supply, as well as advances in public health. According to the 

World Resources Institute: on average, food supplies are 24 percent higher per person than in 1961, and 

real prices of agricultural food products are 40 percent lower, although the distribution of this supply is 

highly unequal. Agriculture is currently the world’s largest industry, employing over one billion people 

and generating over $1 trillion worth of food products annually. The same land that is occupied by farms 

and pastures also provides habitat and food for the majority of the world’s plant and animal life. 

However, the rapid expansion of agricultural production over the last century has also had a profound 

negative effect on biodiversity globally. 

Whether positive or negative, the interactions between agriculture and biodiversity occur along the four 

stages of the agricultural supply chain: from preproduction services (such as input and technology 

supply), to on-farm production, to processing and trade, and finally ending in the consumption of 

agricultural products. The following are a few examples of the negative impacts of agriculture on 

biodiversity at the production level of the supply chain: 

•	 Millions of hectares of forests and natural vegetation have been cleared for agricultural use causing 

fragmentation of natural habitats and their populations of wild species into smaller units, rendering 

them vulnerable to extinction. 

•	 Farmers often eliminate wild species from their lands to reduce the negative effects of pests, 

predators, and weeds. 

•	 The misuse or overuse of agricultural inputs such nonorganic pesticides and fertilizers has poisoned 

water and soil and polluted coastal areas. 

•	 As the largest user of freshwater globally, agricultural production puts an immense strain on water 

resources and causes water scarcity and damage to aquatic ecosystems in many places. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 109 
The complex and interconnected nature of agriculture on the world economy, human livelihoods, and 

biodiversity, makes agriculture one of the most important frontiers for conservation of ecosystems 

globally. Therefore the integration of agricultural development and conservation of wild biodiversity 

(through sustainable agribultural practices, ecoagriculture, agroforestry), building on ecoregional 

approaches to conservation (see Chapter 3, Issues of Scale) is increasingly important to both sustaining 

the well-being of human populations and the health of biodiverse ecosystems. 

110 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
15.1 ECOAGRICULTURE 

Healthy natural ecosystems and biodiversity that provide a range of ecological services are essential to 

agriculture. Insects, birds, and other animals play important roles both in pollination and pest control. 

Insects, bats, and birds are the principal pollinators of many fruit trees and major staple food crops such 

as potatoes, cassavas, yams, taro, beans, and coffee. Declining populations of pollinators and species 

responsible for seed distribution threaten both the yields of major food crops and the survival of wild 

plant species. In terms of increasing productivity, wild species of domesticated races and cultivars are 

increasingly important for out-crossing for disease- and pest-resistant crop variants. Action is needed to 

effectively conserve these species in their native habitats, as well as to conserve the variety of species that 

may be important in the future for food and/or medicine. 

Ecoagriculture is “a framework that seeks to achieve improved livelihoods, conservation of biodiversity 

(genetic resources, ecosystem services, and wild flora and fauna), and sustainable production at the 

landscape scale” (from the Nairobi Declaration, see Web link below). It includes systems and practices 

that link production and biodiversity across landscapes, such as: 

•	 Agroforestry production systems that integrate wild and domesticated plants and livestock (trees, 

shrubs, grasses, crops, etc.), and to the extent possible mimic the structure of natural vegetation and 

maintain ecological functions; 

•	 Low external input and organic agriculture that emphasizes locally adapted methods; 

•	 Reduction and management of agricultural input use and farm wastes to minimize off-farm pollution 

of aquatic ecosystems; 

•	 Soil and water conservation; 

•	 Taking the needs of local farming, pastoralist, and forest communities into account when planning 

and implementing biodiversity conservation activities in rural landscapes; 

•	 Use of unfarmed areas, forest mosaics and wetland ecosystems to develop habitat networks and 

connectivity that support or expand the range of wild species, including those with migratory patterns; 

•	 Reduction or reverse conversion of wild lands to production agriculture, agroforestry, forestry, or 

aquaculture by sustainably increasing the productivity of land already under use; and 

•	 Placement of protected areas within the process of landscape planning and implementation, enabling 

the livelihood, biodiversity conservation, and economic benefits to be articulated and realized. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 111 
KEY QUESTIONS, ISSUES, AND EXAMPLES 

•	 What strategies can USAID managers use to increase agricultural production and also conserve 

biodiversity? 

Designing and implementing programs and activities using ecoagricultural techniques, agroforestry, 

organic agriculture, certification programs, and cleaner production at all levels of the food supply 

chain can all create synergies that both improve agricultural production and help to conserve 

biodiversity. 

“Shade coffee” is grown under the shade of the canopy of native trees, which provide a habitat for 

plants, birds, mammals, and insects. It is a traditional practice of small farmers. “Sun coffee” or largescale industrial coffee production involves cutting down the original forest and planting a 

monoculture of coffee trees, and using pesticides and other agricultural inputs to boost yields. USAID 

has helped support shade coffee farming through the Finance Alliance for Sustainable Trade (FAST) 

program, which creates partnerships among U.S.-based alternative lenders; socially responsible 

importers and roasters; and organizations that run independent, ecolabeling programs, and social 

audits, such as Fair Trade certification. In 2003, FAST helped 29 trade credit facilities in Latin 

America, including more than $5.7 million in trade credit to 18 different coffee farmer organizations. 

The program helped more than 4,000 small farmers improve their livelihoods while benefiting 

biodiversity. A coffee grower organization in Guatemala launched a regional reforestation program 

focused on coffee shade farming, and an increasing number of farmers in Costa Rica have switched to 

growing organic coffee and shade coffee, particularly in high biodiversity habitats. 

•	 How can USAID staff support policies and build capacity to promote biodiversity conservation 

in conjunction with agricultural development? 

Agricultural activities, such as the development of farmers groups for sustainable farming practices, 

community engagement with extension agencies, and the participation of farmers in farmer field 

schools can strengthen capacity to conserve biodiversity and to sustainably increase agricultural 

production and farm income. USAID staff can also support the creation of agricultural and 

biodiversity policy that aims to conserve biodiversity while improving agricultural practices and 

production. Economic and policy incentives can also be powerful tools for farmers to conserve 

biodiversity. 

In East Timor, USAID is helping to build the capacity to farm in ways that help to conserve 

biodiversity through a collaborative program that brings innovative techniques to East Timor’s 

farmers. The University of Hawaii and the U.S.-based National Cooperative Business Association 

(NCBA) have joined forces to establish tree seedling production, develop improved farming 

practices, and provide research and extension training on sustainable farming practices for workers 

and farmers. NCBA supports Cooperativa Cafe Timor (CCT), East Timor’s largest cooperative 

organization and producer of coffee. CCT is also involved in expanding vanilla production and 

improving cattle-raising skills. It has a membership of more than 20,000 farm families. To support its 

agricultural activities, CCT runs a seedling nursery in Dili that can produce up to a million seedlings 

each year. Seedlings include shade trees for coffee, host trees for vanilla vines, and fodder trees for 

cattle. 

112 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 113 

•	 Bakarr, M.I. 2000. Linking Agriculture and Biodiversity Conservation—Review of USAIDSupported Efforts in Africa. Washington, DC: BSP: 

http://www.bsponline.org/bsp/publications/africa/181/index.html 

•	 Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University. 

Indigenous knowledge and agricultural systems: http://www.ciesin.org/TG/AG/iksys.html 

•	 Ecoagriculture Partners. The Nairobi Declaration. 

http://www.ecoagriculturepartners.org/Meetings/Nairobi2004/nairobi dec.php 

•	 Ellis, Julia. 2000. Agriculture and Biodiversity/Natural Resource Management Results of Sector 

Interviews in USAID. Washington, DC: BSP: 

http://www.bsponline.org/bsp/publications/africa/180/interview.htm 

•	 GreenCOM. Ecoagriculture: http://www.greencom.org/greencom/pdf/hn-v7n1-eng.pdf 

•	 Margoluis, R. et al. Maximum Yield?—Sustainable Agriculture as a Tool for Conservation. 

Washington, DC: BSP: http://worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/aam/maximum/titlepage.htm 

•	 McNeely, Jeffrey and Sara Scherr. 2003. Ecoagriculture: Strategies to Feed the World and Save Wild 

Biodiversity. Future Harvest and IUCN, Island Press, Washington, DC. 

•	 McNeely, Jeffrey and Sara Scherr. May 2001. Common Ground, Common Future: How 

Ecoagriculture Can Help Feed the World and Save Wild Biodiversity. IUCN. Gland, Report 5/01: 

http://www.futureharvest.org/pdf/biodiversity report.pdf 

•	 Thrupp, Lori Ann. 1997. Linking Biodiversity and Agriculture: Challenges and Opportunities for 

Sustainable Food Security. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute: 

http://pubs.wri.org/pubs description.cfm?PubID=2633 

•	 Wilkie, David S. 2001. Agriculture and Biodiversity Conservation Investments by USAID in 

Africa—Possible Cross-Sectoral Synergies and Perverse Impacts. Washington, DC: BSP: 

http://www.bsponline.org/bsp/publications/africa/182/titlepage.htm 

•	 World Bank Global Workshop on Sustainable Fisheries. June 2004: 

http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/ardext.nsf/11ByDocName/NewsEventsEventsGlobalWorkshopo 

nSustainableFisheries 

•	 World Resources Institute. Linking Biodiversity and Agriculture: Agrobiodiversity as a basis for 

production and survival: http://pubs.wri.org/pubs description.cfm?PubID=2633 
15.2 RANGELAND MANAGEMENT AND PASTORALISM 

Pastoralism is a form of agriculture that involves grazing livestock, such as cattle, sheep, goats, camels, 

llamas, or reindeer. This ancient agricultural practice is especially suited to the grassland ecosystems of 

Earth, and takes advantage of native grasses as the base of a productive food chain that supports humans. 

Managed and pastoral grazing lands are ideal habitats to link sound grassland management, improved 

livestock production and effective conservation of wildlife habitat. Managing for sustainable stocking 

rates and reliable access to markets can lead to improved grassland health and reductions in livestockwildlife conflict. Improved grazing systems can also lead to increased wildlife populations. 

KEY QUESTIONS, ISSUES, 

AND EXAMPLES 

•	 How can rangeland 

management and 

pastoralism help to conserve 

biodiversity? 

Mobile pastoral people are
 

increasingly marginalized in
 

developing economies, yet
 

their nomadic systems are 
 

often based on a wealth of
 

traditional ecological
 

knowledge and are often well 

adapted to dryland 

ecosystems in many parts of 

the world, from the Andes, to 

eastern and southern Africa, to Central Asia. Communal tenure regimes are often in conflict with 

other types of tenure that have developed in nonmobile farming communities. Opportunities exist in 

many places where USAID works to support the synergies between traditional pastoral systems and 

conservation of biodiversity. 

In East Africa, USAID support to the African Wildlife Foundation has worked with Maasai 

communities in the Maasai Steppe Heartland. These pastoralists live in areas surrounding famous 

wildlife parks such as Amboseli and Masai Mara in Kenya; and Tarangire, Lake Manyara, and 

Serengeti National Parks in Tanzania. They also live within the Ngorongoro Conservation Area 

adjacent to the Serengeti in Tanzania, sharing it with wildlife. 

 

 

 

Prometa, a Bolivian NGO, is supporting llama herding in the Reserva 

de Sama. Llamas, indigenous livestock of Andean alriplano, have a 

lower impact on vegetation than sheep, which were promoted by 

Spanish colonists. 

BRUCE BYERS, ARD, INC. 

114 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 115 

•	 African Wildlife Foundation. Maasai Steppe Heartland: http://www.awf.org/heartlands/maasaisteppe/ 

•	 Bonkoungou, Edouard G., and Maryam Naimir-Fuller. Biodiversity in Drylands: Challenges and 

Opportunities for Conservation and Sustainable Use: 

http://www.undp.org/drylands/docs/cpapers/Biodiversity-in-the-Drylands-Challenge-Paper.pdf 

•	 International Center for Integrated Mountain Development. Rangeland Management in the Hindu 

Kush Himalayas: http://www.icimod.org.np/focus/rangelands/range toc.htm 

•	 World Alliance on Mobile Indigenous Peoples. Briefing Notes on Mobile Peoples and Conservation: 

http://www.cenesta.org/projects/Pastoralism/WAMIP%20Briefing%20Notes%20on%20Mobile%20P 

eoples%20and%20Conservation.pdf 

•	 World Conservation Union. Dana Declaration on Mobile Peoples and Conservation: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/dana.htm 

•	 World Parks Congress Recommendation 27: Mobile Indigenous Peoples and Conservation: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/pdfs/outputs/recommendations/approved/english/html/r2 

7.htm 
15.3 AQUACULTURE 

Aquaculture is the production of aquatic organisms (fish, crustaceans, mollusks, seaweeds, etc.) under 

controlled conditions for all or part of their lifecycle, and is thus a type of agriculture. Freshwater fish 

farms, seaweed farms and shrimp farms are some examples of aquaculture systems. Aquaculture that 

occurs in coastal and marine waters is referred to as mariculture. Aquaculture is one of the fastest growing 

food production sectors globally and now accounts for one-third of all fishery products (fish, crustaceans, 

mollusks, aquatic plants) consumed by volume. This trend is due in part to the growing global scarcity of 

wild fish stocks and the resulting increased restrictions on the harvest of many marine species combined 

with the increased global demand for freshwater and marine fisheries products. Despite its potentially 

crucial role in the reduction of overexploitation of natural fish stocks and improving food security in 

tropical and subtropical regions, aquaculture has had some significant negative impacts on biodiversity 

and local environments, including the destruction of coastal mangrove forests to make way for ponds, 

pollution of local water ways, introduction of exotic fish species, and its intensive use of natural resources 

inputs (e.g., fishmeal for use in aquaculture feeds). These impacts are most prevalent for intensive 

aquaculture systems such as those used in the production of salmon and shrimp. The vast majority of 

aquaculture systems, especially freshwater systems that account for about 60 percent of global 

aquaculture production, have had minimal environmental impacts. Through recent innovations and 

improvements in production technologies, aquaculture is increasingly being implemented in ways that 

minimize negative impacts on biodiversity and the local environment, while producing fish protein for 

local use and international trade as well as taking pressure off of local ecosystems. 

KEY QUESTIONS, ISSUES, AND EXAMPLES 

•	 How can aquaculture help to conserve biodiversity? 

Depending on the location of the activity and local markets, aquaculture may have the effect of 

offsetting the demand for wild fish stocks, thereby taking pressure off these populations and 

contributing to the conservation of marine and freshwater biodiversity. This is especially true when 

native species that have high local market demands are cultured. Also, aquaculture systems can be use 

to produce fish to replenish overexploited fish stocks—especially in ponds, lakes and rivers. 

In Indonesia, USAID, in collaboration with The Nature Conservancy, is working with local fisherfolk 

around Komodo Island to develop environmentally friendly mariculture of abalone, sea cucumber, 

and grouper, providing an alternative income source for those fisherfolk who are or might engage in 

destructive fishing practices. 

•	 What measures are being taken in the design and implementation of aquaculture operations to 

prevent or mitigate negative impacts on biodiversity? 

The location of the aquaculture ponds as well as the species of fish cultivated (native vs. nonnative), 

the health of the fish stock, the type and volume of feed resources used, and the design of water and 

waste cycling systems all have important impacts on biodiversity. The choice of culture species is 

also critical. For example, fish species such as carp and tilapia that feed low on the food chain require 

much less in the way of nutrient inputs (feeds) and chemicals than do species that are higher up on the 

food chain such as salmon. Great care must be taken with raising nonnative species, however. For 

example, there are many cases in which nonnative tilapia have escaped from aquaculture ponds into 

natural aquatic systems and caused local extinctions of native fish species and therefore negatively 

impacting biodiversity. 

The following are examples of cross-sectoral efforts to reduce negative impacts of aquaculture on 

biodiversity: 

116 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
−	 Making freshwater aquaculture part of an integrated agriculture system (e.g., rearing fish in rice 

paddies, etc.), thus intensifying food production in existing areas and possibly taking pressure off 

of local biodiversity; 

− Reusing “fertilized water” from fish ponds on fields as nutrient enrichment for crops; 

− Breeding native fish species for the dual purpose of stocking aquaculture systems as well as for 

replenishing overexploited fish stocks—especially in ponds, lakes, and rivers; 

− Producing and capturing biogas from the waste materials produced during fish processing for use 

as a low-cost source of energy; and 

− Locating fish ponds on the edges of wetlands, rather than in the middle of wetlands, through 

incentive programs with aquafarmers. 

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 117 

•	 Aquaculture Collaborative Research Support Program: http://pdacrsp.oregonstate.edu 

•	 Network of Aquaculture Centers in Asia-Pacific: http://www.enaca.org/ 

•	 U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service, Aquaculture Briefing Document: 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Aquaculture/ 

•	 World Fish Center: http://www.worldfishcenter.org 
16.0 BIOTECHNOLOGY
 

KEY QUESTIONS 

What are the potential benefits of biotechnology to biodiversity conservation? 

What are the potential risks to biodiversity conservation of biotechnology? 

What measures can be taken to reduce the risks of biotechnology to biodiversity? 

USAID supports biotechnology as a tool to improve agricultural productivity and nutrition in developing 

countries. Modern biotechnology encompasses a range of tools, from the use of molecular markers to 

enhance traditional breeding, to disease diagnostics, to development of genetically engineered (or 

“bioengineered”) crops and livestock vaccines. Bioengineered crops with enhanced pest or disease 

resistance, tolerance to certain herbicides, or improved micronutrient quality are being developed or are 

already in production. These technologies are being developed by both the private sector and by public 

research institutions around the world. As with all agricultural interventions, there is a tradeoff between 

agricultural improvements brought about through bioengineering and environmental sustainability. 

Currently a rich dialogue is ongoing between scientists, policymakers, and the agricultural sector on the 

risks and benefits of biotechnology. Despite potential risks of biotechnology to biodiversity, some studies 

and experience have demonstrated potential environmental benefits to biodiversity of bioengineered 

crops. As developing countries develop and adopt these technologies, USAID can facilitate risk 

assessment and the safe and effective application of biotechnology. 

KEY QUESTIONS, ISSUES AND EXAMPLES 

• What are the potential benefits of biotechnology to biodiversity conservation? 

Biotechnology can be a tool to decrease the impact of current agricultural practices on biodiversity 

and as a tool to directly study natural plant and animal biodiversity outside of agriculture. In the 

broadest context, increasing agricultural productivity on existing lands (intensification) may reduce 

pressures to convert additional habitats to crop or livestock production. Crops engineered to be insect 

or disease-resistant can reduce the use of pesticides, sometimes very dramatically, and this could have 

direct benefits to wild species. 

An example of this technology, which is currently being used in developing countries, is insectresistant cotton (called Bt, for Bacillus thuringiensis, the bacterial source of the gene). Decreased 

pesticide use reduces the impact on nontarget insects present in those agro-ecosystems, and decreases 

pesticide runoff into watersheds. Some herbicide-tolerant traits engineered into crops like cotton, 

soybean, and corn facilitate the use of reduced or “conservation” tillage practices. Reduced soil tillage 

improves the soil productivity by increasing biomass in the soil while decreasing soil erosion and 

siltation of local water resources. 

In addition to the benefits from integration of biotechnology into agriculture, the tools of molecular 

biology can enhance our characterization and monitoring of native biodiversity. For example, one can 

look at the genetic diversity of a particular plant or animal species as a means to describe species in 

greater detail, to track migration or breeding between populations, or understand the genetic health of 

118 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
a very limited breeding population. Biotechnology has recently been used to monitor elephant
 

populations in Africa in order to track illegal trade in ivory.
 

•	 What are the potential risks to biodiversity conservation of biotechnology? 

The potential risks posed by biotechnology to biodiversity must be evaluated and assessed on a caseby-case basis; evaluating the risk for each technology for each ecosystem. In general, bioengineered 

crops do not change the inherent nature of the plant, but add one or two very discrete traits. The 

regulatory system to support this type of risk assessment, referred to as biosafety, is discussed below. 

The types of risks to biodiversity of biotechnology fall into the following categories: 

−	 Risk of interbreeding of crop plants to wild relatives (out-crossing) in regions, known as “centers 

of origin” or “centers of diversity,” where the crop was originally domesticated thousands of 

years ago. Out-crossing can only occur with closely related plants, so, for example, maize does 

not pose a risk of out-crossing to native plants in Africa, but sorghum does. Out-crossing is a risk 

to biodiversity when the trait that was engineered into the plant increases the weediness—the 

tendency to exist in nonnative environments or act as an invasive species—of native relatives, 

thus affecting the prevalence or competitiveness of those native plants in ecosystems. 

−	 Risk that the bioengineered trait will affect nontarget organisms or have other unintended effects 

on ecosystem dynamics. The most common of these concerns is the impact of a pest-resistance 

trait on insects that are not pests. Most pest-resistance genes being deployed to date are specific 

only to a narrow range of insects and cannot harm other animal species directly. Other types of 

unintended effects might be potential shifts in insect populations, or species that feed on insects, 

due to reduced target pest insects, or secondary changes in ecosystems dues to changes in 

agricultural practices such as reduced pesticide use and tillage practices. For crops engineered for 

increased nutritional content, potential impacts on biodiversity are not yet known. 

−	 Risks that genetic material identified and isolated from local flora or fauna from developing 

countries will be commercialized and patented in developed countries without benefiting the 

genetic material’s source country. 

−	 Risk that pest insects can develop resistance to the trait engineered into insect-resistant crops, 

thus diminishing the efficacy of the insect-resistant crop. There are implications for biodiversity if 

diminished efficacy results in increased use of conventional insecticides. 

•	 What measures can be taken to reduce the risks of biotechnology to biodiversity? 

USAID currently supports three types of programs and actions to mitigate the potential risks of 

agricultural biotechnology research and crop production on biodiversity. These are consistent with a 

new international environmental agreement, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which regulates the 

transboundary movement of some types of bioengineered products. The Cartagena Protocol falls 

under the Convention on Biological Diversity (see Chapter 27, International Treaties). While the 

U.S. is not a party to the Cartagena Protocol, many of our client countries are; thus this agreement is 

taken into account in our technical assistance efforts. 

Research: Environmental research to understand risks to biodiversity and support science-based risk 

assessment. EGAT/ESP and EGAT/NRM oversee the Biotechnology and Biodiversity Interface 

competitive grants program which makes annual research grants in this area. A sample of current 

grants include research on the potential risks of growth-enhanced tilapia to native fish in Thailand, 

bioengineered rice in Asia to native biodiversity, out-crossing of bioengineered sorghum to native 

grasses in Africa, bioengineered maize to nontarget species in Africa, and bioengineered maize to soil 

microbes in Colombia. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 119 
Biosafety Capacity Building: EGAT and USAID missions in about a dozen countries worldwide 

support development of biosafety systems to assess and regulate the risks of biotechnology to the 

environment and human health. The types of assistance include regulatory policy development, 

outreach to the public and other stakeholders, and training in risk assessment and other technical areas 

of regulatory implementation. 

USAID Environmental Review: In addition to building host-country capacity to effectively regulate 

the risks of biotechnology, USAID policy requires the review of potential environmental risks under 

Regulation 216. To implement this policy with respect to research programs that involved 

development of bioengineered crops or vaccines, USAID requires an independent biosafety review 

before any products are tested in the field or other direct environmental release. A new ADS policy is 

being finalized. For further information, missions should contact USAID Washington’s ESP Office in 

the EGAT Bureau. 

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

120 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 

•	 AgBios—a partner of USAID in biosafety development: http://www.agbios.com/main.php 

•	 Biotechnology Union of Concerned Scientists: Food and Environment: 

http://www.ucsusa.org/food and environment/biotechnology/index.cfm 

•	 Braun, Richard and Klaus Ammann. Biodiversity: The Impact of Biotechnology: 

http://www.botanischergarten.ch/EFB/UNESCO-Biodiv-Biotech-Final.pdf 

•	 Ecological Society of America: http://www.esa.org/pao/esaPositions/Papers/geo position.htm 

•	 European Commission environmental research: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/quality-oflife/gmo 

•	 International Council for Science. National Studies on Biotechnology: 

http://www.icsu.org/1 icsuinscience/GMO/html/national studies.htm 

•	 The Royal Society (UK). Genetic modification of plants: 

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/landing.asp?id=1216 

•	 U.S. biotechnology regulations: http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/ 
17.0 CONFLICT
 

KEY QUESTIONS 

How does the design of biodiversity conservation activities affect the possibility of conflict in the program 

area? 

In areas of violent conflict, are the negative effects of conflict on natural resources and biodiversity being taken 

into account in planning activities? 

How do policies and laws in other development sectors affect natural resources conflicts in the program area? 

The high economic value of biodiversity (such as tropical timber) and the importance of biodiverse 

ecosystems to local livelihoods often places biodiversity at the center of violent conflict in the following 

ways: disputed access and increasing scarcity of valuable elements of biodiversity as the catalyst for 

conflict, the exploitation of elements of biodiversity to finance violent conflict, and the degradation of 

biodiversity as an impact of war and violent conflict. 

The lack of good governance, just law enforcement, and security of tenure often leads to competition and 

conflict over access and rights to biodiversity. For example, local communities may have resource and 

biodiversity management traditions but insecure tenure. External pressure on local resources (exerted by 

elites, loggers, migrants, etc.) may force communities into violence in defense of their resource rights. 

These conflicts have the potential to arise within, as well as between communities. Further, the increasing 

scarcity of vital natural resources and biodiversity enhances competition for access to resources, 

exacerbating conflict. Empowering communities to manage and uphold access rights, develop better 

institutions and systems of resource governance, and minimize corruption will both minimize conflict and 

conserve biodiversity. 

The unsustainable 

exploitation of biodiversity to 

finance violent conflict 

operations has degraded 

ecosystems around the world, 

especially in parts of both 

Africa and Asia. For example 

in Liberia, the warlord 

President Charles Taylor 

clearly exploited both 

diamonds and timber 

(sometimes referred to as 

“conflict timber”) to finance 

his military operations 

domestically. In this case, the 

dynamics between 

biodiversity and violent 

conflict have clear negative 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 121 

JAMES JARVIE, ARD, INC. 

Villagers in Porsea protest the reopening of the PT Toba Pulp Lestari mill 

in North Sumatra. The mill has taken land to grow plantations and is 

simultaneously responsible for widespread clearance of natural forests. 
impacts on local populations (for example the migration of communities to Guinea to escape local 

violence, etc.) and ecosystems (the unsustainable, unjust exploitation of biodiversity resources). 

KEY QUESTIONS, ISSUES AND EXAMPLES 

•	 How does the design of biodiversity conservation activities affect the possibility of conflict in the 

program area? 

Biodiversity conservation and natural resources management activities in some cases may address the 

allocation of access to resources. The manner and process through which this occurs may either 

increase or mitigate the possibility of conflict in the area. Ultimately though, biodiversity 

conservation activities should encourage the equitable and sustainable utilization and conservation of 

biodiversity resources. 

In the Terai region of Nepal, the establishment of the Royal Chitwan National Park in 1973 led to 

considerable conflict and marginalization of local populations since the park was established and 

managed by the central government and military with little input from or regard for local populations 

resource needs. Over the last three decades these conflicts have been addressed in part through 

legislation allowing for decentralized, local management by forest user groups of forests in the buffer 

zone surrounding the park. USAID has supported conservation and community development efforts 

aimed at decreasing conflict, meeting communities’ social and economic development needs, while 

conserving sensitive biodiversity in the Terai region. 

•	 In areas of violent conflict, are the negative effects of conflict on natural resources and 

biodiversity being taken into account in planning activities? 

Conflict can break down established institutions of ecosystem protection (functioning biodiversity 

conservation organizations, law enforcement, military support, protected area management) by 

diverting attention, resources, transportation, and information systems in an area away from 

biodiversity conservation. Violent conflict can also cause the movement of populations into remote 

areas/ecosystems therefore increasing the exploitation of biodiversity in those sensitive regions. 

On a macro-policy level, in the Middle East, where water rights are fundamental to political and 

security negotiations, the Israeli-Palestinian Joint Water Committee has issued a declaration for 

keeping water infrastructure out of the cycle of violence, allowing USAID’s work in the water sector 

to proceed. On a regional level, the use of environmental information, such as locations of protected 

areas and areas of high biodiversity, can inform the siting of refugee camps in areas which will have 

limited negative impacts on local ecosystems. 

•	 How do policies and laws in other development sectors affect natural resources conflicts in the 

program area? 

Policies and laws intended to improve socioeconomic development or resource governance, for 

instance, have the potential to result in increased conflict. For example, they may take land 

or traditional use rights to natural resources away from already marginalized groups, or create 

conflicts between a country and its neighbors over shared, transboundary natural resources, or 

between national-level and local-level stakeholders with different interests. 

In Indonesia, the rapid devolution of rights to forest resources to the district level has “fragmented 

command and control over the country without creating meaningful opportunities for stable, 

democratic self-governance,” (ARD, Inc., Conflict Timber, Volume II, May 2003, Web link given 

below) leading to unequal and uncoordinated control of forest resources throughout the country. 

Newly devolved power over natural resources has also been abused by corrupt politicians at the local 

level. 

122 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

­

­

­

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 123 

•	 ARD, Inc. May 2003. Conflict Timber: Dimensions of the Problem in Asia and Africa. USAID Office 

of Transition Initiatives and Asia and Near East Bureaus. 

Volume I: http://www.usaid.gov/hum response/oti/pubs/vol1synth.pdf
 

Volume II: http://www.usaid.gov/hum response/oti/pubs/vol2asia.pdf
 

Volume III: http://www.usaid.gov/hum_response/oti/pubs/vol3afr.pdf
 

•	 ARD, Inc., 2004. Managing Conflict in Asian Forest Communities: Growing Conflict and Unrest in 

Indonesian Forests. USAID OTI ANE/TS: http://www.ardbiofor.com/documents/Indonesia%20Summary%20Paper.pdf 

•	 Biodiversity Support Program. Armed Conflict and the Environment Project list of publications: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/programs/africa/conflict.html 

•	 Center for International Forestry Research. Forests and conflict page: 

http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/docs/_ref/aboutcifor/factsheet/forests_conflict.htm 

•	 East Asia and Pacific Environmental Initiative. Conflict and Environment Links: 

http://eapei.home.att.net/Links/conflictlinks.htm 

•	 International Institute for Sustainable Development’s Conservation in Post-Conflict Settings: 

http://www.iisd.org/natres/security/cac.asp (see 

http://www.iisd.org/natres/security/publications.asp#cac for a list of relevant publications). 

•	 USAID. Conflict Management Toolkits: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross

cutting_programs/conflict/publications/toolkits.html 

•	 USAID. Land and Conflict: A Toolkit for Intervention: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross

cutting_programs/conflict/publications/docs/CMM_Land_and_Conflict_2004.pdf 

•	 USAID. Minerals and Conflict: A Toolkit for Intervention: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross

cutting_programs/conflict/publications/docs/CMM_Minerals_and_Conflict_2004.pdf 
18.0 CONSERVATION 

ENTERPRISE 

DEVELOPMENT 

KEY QUESTIONS 

What issues should be considered during product development and the business management of conservation 

enterprises? 

What kinds of products could form the basis for enterprises serving local, national, and international markets? 

Are there opportunities to support the development of such enterprises with business management and 

financial assistance? 

Sustained economic growth and 

development depends on a healthy 

environment, and therefore the 

management and conservation of natural 

resources contribute to a country’s 

prosperity. However, perverse incentives 

created by the short-term benefits of rapid

economic growth, and the long-term costs

of unsustainable natural resources 

management, have created a dynamic that

continues to plague the economic 

development process. Short-term 

economic incentives have long motivated 

societies to unsustainably exploit natural 

resources. The same short-term economic 

incentives driving unsustainable resource 

exploitation can, however, also be used to

motivate communities to conserve natural

resources through sustainable enterprise 

development. 

Biodiversity conservation should not occur at the expense of poor communities around the world. As the 

stewards of their local environment, rural communities can and should benefit from local biotic resources. 

The goals of economic development and biodiversity conservation can both be met when communities 

living in areas with important natural resources and biodiversity adopt income-generating activities that 

are compatible with and encourage biodiversity conservation. When communities benefit from 

biodiversity they are more likely to conserve, and sustainably manage it. 

124 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 

An employee at the Bosnian company, Mushroom, holds up an 

enormous wild mushroom. USAID s Linking Agricultural 

Markets to Producers project in Bosnia Herzegovina is helping 

to provide thousands of jobs to Bosnians and protect wild 

biodiversity as the country struggles to recover from conflict. 

BOSNIA LAMP PROJECT, ARD, INC. 
KEY QUESTIONS, ISSUES AND EXAMPLES 

•	 What issues should be considered during product development and the business management of 

conservation enterprises? 

Market research and analysis is required to identify opportunities, from the demand side, for 

conservation-linked enterprises. Ecologically sustainable harvesting levels of any wild product upon 

which such enterprises will be based should also be determined, in order to understand any limitations 

of supply that might affect enterprise development. Without a viable market and yield analysis for 

these products or services, the long-term economic and ecological sustainability and benefits of these 

enterprises are highly unstable. Additionally, the strength of the linkage between an enterprise, and 

incentives for conservation can vary widely, and should be explicitly defined and considered during 

enterprise planning and development. Business ownership structure (e.g., cooperative, communitybased, private, non-profit), as well as the size and scale of the enterprise, are important considerations 

for creating incentives for local communities. The ecological sustainability of the “product” is a 

fundamental issue since the economic sustainability ultimately rests on the ecological foundation of 

production, and conversely, the health of local ecosystems depend on sustainable resource use and 

management. 

Activities chosen as economic alternatives should provide sufficient revenues and take sufficient 

labor to actually replace environmentally destructive activities—otherwise there is a significant 

possibility that the activities may actually increase environmental degradation. For example, in the 

Philippines, a project promoted cashew production as an alternative to destructive fishery 

practices. However, producing cashews required only about one or two months of labor per year, 

and therefore did not provide the year-round employment or income needed to replace destructive 

fishing practices. 

In the Himalayan foothills of northern India, USAID has supported community-owned enterprises 

producing honey and silk which are helping to provide economic incentives for the conservation of 

natural forests. Honey is produced by bees that forage for nectar in natural forests, alpine meadows, 

and agricultural lands, and sold to pilgrims visiting famous Hindu shrines in the area. Tasar 

silkworms are a species raised on oak leaves harvested in natural forests. For both of these 

enterprises, community ownership was the most appropriate business structure—ownership of the 

companies lies with village institutions that have traditionally played a role in communal 

management of local forests. To ensure the ecological sustainability of silkworm production, a system 

is in place for monitoring the harvesting of oak leaves and its effect on forest regeneration. 

•	 What kinds of products could form the basis for enterprises serving local, national, and 

international markets? 

There are a wide variety of products based on local biodiversity such as ecotourism, sustainable wood 

products, NTFPs, sustainable hunting, bioprospecting, and agroforestry products (e.g., shade-grown 

coffee). Product development is a critical step in creating conservation enterprises, and technical 

assistance may be needed, whether the products are tourism destinations and experiences; wood 

products; or non-wood natural products, such as foods, crafts, or medicines. Developing marketable 

products from some element(s) of biodiversity may also require inputs of technology or infrastructure. 

Value chain analyses can also help to ensure that a proposed conservation enterprise will bring benefits 

to poor, rural people; assisting them with their economic needs, and thereby providing economic 

incentives for conservation. This is especially important for products aimed at global markets where 

disparities of wealth and power between the producers and consumers are often vast. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 125 
In Sulawesi, Indonesia, the Bunaken National Marine Park has been successfully co-managed, with 

revenues being generated through fees charged to divers. Fees are divided up between the local 

community, park management, and local government with revenues over $75,000 in the first year. 

•	 Are there opportunities to support the development of such enterprises with business 

management and financial assistance? 

In order to develop profitable and sustainable businesses, communities and small-scale entrepreneurs 

may need support in developing appropriate business ownership structures and in organizational 

development. Business management training can provide the skills needed to run a profitable business 

(e.g., licensing, accounting and bookkeeping, negotiating agreements, marketing). Conservation 

enterprises, especially if owned by communities or poor, rural entrepreneurs, may need assistance to 

find sources of finance and credit, sometimes even for very small amounts (e.g., microfinance, 

microcredit). These enterprises may also need support for training and human resources development. 

In Namibia, USAID has been supporting the development of community-based natural resources 

management since 1993 with its Living in a Finite Environment (LIFE) project. Through this project, 

communal-land conservancies with the right to manage wildlife on their land have been developed, 

and some of these have established conservation enterprises. For example, thanks to organizational, 

business, and human resources development supported through the LIFE project, the Torra 

Conservancy was able to negotiate an agreement with a large ecotourism company for the operation 

of a luxury-tented lodge in the Namib Desert. This venture earned the conservancy more than U.S. 

$34,000 in 2003. The conservancy also earned $11,000 through the sale of wildlife to private game 

ranchers, and $14,000 for trophy hunting concessions. (For more information, see USAID/Namibia 

Natural Resources Management: Related News Stories, and Wilderness Damaraland Camp, Web 

links given below.) 

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

126 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 

•	 African Wildlife Foundation. Conservation Through Enterprise: 

http://www.awf.org/documents/enterprise.pdf 

•	 Biodiversity Conservation Network. Bibliography for Conservation Enterprise: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/bcn/learning/biblio/bib.htm 

•	 Biodiversity Conservation Network. 1999. Evaluating Linkages Between Business, the Environment, 

and Local Communities: Final Analytical Results from the Biodiversity Conservation Network: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/bcn/analytical/analytical.pdf 

•	 Biodiversity Conservation Network. 1999. Evaluating Linkages Between Business, the Environment, 

and Local Communities—Final Stories from the Field: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/bcn/annual report/bcn report.pdf 

•	 Biodiversity Conservation Network. 1999. Community-Based Conservation Enterprises in 

Melanesia—What Have We Learned? Principles Developed During a Practitioner Workshop: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/bcn/archives/wn9.htm 

• Biodiversity Economics Library: Trade—Hot Topics: http://biodiversityeconomics.org/trade/tradetopics.htm 

•	 Conservation International. Conservation Enterprise: 

http://www.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/programs/enterprises 
•	 Conservation International Center for Environmental Leadership in Business: 

http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/programs/ 

•	 Department for International Development. Participatory Value Chains Analysis: 

http://www.enterprise-impact.org.uk/pdf/EINMay03.pdf 

•	 Enterweb. Microfinance: http://www.enterweb.org/microcre.htm 

•	 Enterweb. Donors Activities in Enterprise Development: http://www.enterweb.org/donors.htm 

•	 Pact. Conservation of Resources Through Enterprises: 

http://www.pactworld.org/programs/country/kenya/kenya_core.htm 

•	 Rainforest Alliance. Community Conservation Enterprises: http://www.rainforestalliance.org/programs/cce/ 

•	 USAID. Microenterprise Development at USAID: http://www.usaidmicro.org/default.asp 

•	 USAID. Nature, Wealth, and Power: Emerging Best Practice for Revitalizing Rural Africa: 

http://www.dec.org/pdf docs/pnacr288.pdf 

•	 Wilderness Damaraland Camp: http://www.namibian.org/travel/lodging/private/damaraland.htm 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 127 
19.0 DEMOCRACY AND
 

GOVERNANCE
 

KEY QUESTIONS 

How can natural resources management and biodiversity conservation increase opportunities for democratic 

participation and empowerment of marginalized stakeholder groups, or NGOs that represent their interests? 

Can decentralization of authority be advanced through support for local community access and secure rights to 

ecological resources? 

What are the opportunities to better conserve biodiversity and natural resources by improving laws and 

policies, strengthening the rule of law, increasing transparency and accountability in government, and reducing 

corruption? 

What are the opportunities to improve citizens’ access to information and the media, and strengthen their 

ability to advocate for their views, through a focus on critical environmental problems and issues? 

The linkages between governance, democracy, and biodiversity conservation are mutually reinforcing. 

Therefore, the governance of natural resources and biodiversity based on democratic decision-making 

processes and principles of participation, equity, and sustainability can support the long-term health of 

ecosystems and the communities that depend on them. Poor governance—demonstrated through a lack of 

key stakeholder participation, overcentralized authority, corrupt or weak capacities to implement 

environmental protections and benefit sharing, and illegal harvesting of valuable natural resources for a 

privileged few members of society—can subvert sustainable natural resources management and impede 

achievement of conservation and development goals. Likewise, unsustainable and inequitable use of 

natural resources and loss of biodiversity can work against the development of more democratic 

societies—for example, by fueling conflicts over scarce natural resources, and the inequitable distribution 

of these resources. 

There are four essential elements of effective democratic governance to consider in biodiversity 

conservation programs: participation, decentralization, information advocacy, and policy law. Efforts to 

strengthen the voice of civil society and include traditionally disenfranchised or marginalized 

stakeholders (including women) in resource decision making generally improves the chances that 

conservation interventions will be accepted and sustained over the long term. With secure rights and 

access to land and other resources in place, local communities can more effectively partner in 

conservation and development programs. Improvements in public access to information about 

biodiversity, natural resources, and the environment allows people to more effectively manage and plan 

for a sustainable future. A suitable enabling environment, in the form of relevant environmental 

legislation, appropriate reforms, and accountable and transparent mechanisms for policymaking is 

necessary to ensure sustainable resources management over time. 

128 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
KEY QUESTIONS, ISSUES AND EXAMPLES 

•	 How can natural resources management and biodiversity conservation increase opportunities 

for democratic participation and empowerment of marginalized stakeholder groups, or NGOs 

that represent their interests? 

Participation by citizens and representation of their diverse interests within a pluralistic society are 

key characteristics of democratic governance. Participation and representation can lead to better, 

more sustainable decisions and can reduce conflicts. Because ecological resources and biodiversity 

are so important to people in developing countries—and often disproportionately important to the 

poorest and most marginalized groups—their use and management can provide entrée for increased 

participation and improved societal representation. 

In Bolivia, USAID and conservation partners such as the Wildlife Conservation Society are working 

with local indigenous populations to more effectively participate in resource management and 

decision making in areas surrounding Madidi National Park. After years of prolonged negotiation 

with the Bolivian government, over 325,000 hectares of Tacana communal lands were secured for 

local indigenous populations. USAID is helping the Tacana people to undertake participatory zoning 

processes, develop resource management plans and specific resource use regulations that they can 

self-monitor and enforce, and strengthening advocacy skills of indigenous peoples’ organizations like 

CIPTA (Consejo Indigena del Pueblo Tacana) to participate in conservation and development 

planning at local and national levels. As a result of these activities, indigenous populations who have 

traditionally been marginalized from decision-making processes have a new role in determining how 

their local environment is managed and exploited. The Tacana experience has increasingly been 

touted as a model for local participation by the national government’s protected area agency. 

•	 Can decentralization of authority be advanced through support for local community access and 

secure rights to ecological resources? 

Highly centralized government authority sometimes can retard development because it may be less 

democratic, participatory, and representative of diverse perspectives of stakeholders; may be less 

flexible and innovative; and may be more prone to corruption and control by political or economic 

elites. The devolution of authority over natural resources such as forests, grazing lands, or wildlife to 

local communities or regional or local governments, can empower these groups. Decentralization, 

coupled with appropriate technical support and appropriate policies, can provide new sources of 

income from local ecological resources to meet local development needs, and give local governments 

and leaders experience in managing funds accountably and transparently. Local management and 

benefit sharing from biodiversity and natural resources is often an incentive for such resources to be 

managed sustainably. If decentralization occurs too quickly, however, without appropriate 

institutions, policies, and rule of law in place, and with high levels of local corruption, it can lead to 

severe environmental degradation, as seen in some areas of Indonesia. 

In the Philippines, through the Governance and Local Democracy Project, USAID helped devolve land 

tenure and extraction rights from the central government to local communities, improving the livelihood 

of local families while leading to the increased protection and improved management of 2.9 million 

hectares, including 50 percent of the Philippines’ remaining forests. In one municipality, USAID 

support helped local authorities, and a 90-member committee representing all segments of the 

community, to develop a forest land use plan. The democratic processes used to develop the plan helped 

ensure its success. As community members began to feel like stakeholders, they began to report illegal 

logging, for example. With greater participation and increased control over local resources, community 

members have incentives for the protection and sustainable use of those resources. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 129 
•	 What are the opportunities to better conserve biodiversity and natural resources by improving 

laws and policies, strengthening the rule of law, increasing transparency and accountability in 

government, and reducing corruption? 

The conservation of biodiversity requires a supportive enabling environment of government policies 

and laws. Laws and policies to enable citizen participation in environmental decision making, 

decentralize the management of ecological resources, ensure access and the secure rights of 

indigenous communities to natural resources, provide safe and transparent channels for dispute 

resolution, and require assessments of environmental impacts and tradeoffs for infrastructure and 

other development projects are all important. 

Through support for analyses of the problems of illegal logging and “conflict timber” in Asia and 

Africa, USAID is linking rule of law, transparency and accountability, anticorruption activities, and 

other aspects of improved governance with sustainable management of forest resources and 

conservation of biodiversity. 

•	 What are the opportunities to improve citizens’ access to information and the media, and 

strengthen their ability to advocate for their views, through a focus on critical environmental 

problems and issues? 

Citizens and the organizations of civil society that represent them can not effectively participate, 

advocate their positions, or exert their influence on government without access to relevant 

information. Easy access to information and a media that can communicate this information broadly 

to citizens and civil society is necessary for making government accountable and transparent. 

Strengthening the advocacy, communications, and monitoring capacities of legitimate civil society 

organizations ensures a foundation for informed discussion about relevant conservation and 

environmental issues. Global Forest Watch is an organization that seeks to provide information to 

civil society to enable better advocacy for sustainable forest management and forest conservation. 

The USAID Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE) has supported the work 

of Global Forest Watch in Central Africa. 

In Indonesia, USAID’s GreenCOM project worked with NGOs on a large media campaign to educate 

the public about the urgent need to preserve the country’s forests and natural heritage. GreenCOM 

staff held workshops for Indonesian journalists and other communications professionals on 

environmental reporting and strategic communication for social change. The goal of the campaign 

was to convince Indonesians that the country’s forests belong to everyone, not just a privileged few. 

As an emerging Southeast Asian democracy, the Indonesian government has a duty to listen to its 

citizens’ concerns about natural resources just as the citizens have a responsibility to advocate for the 

protection of the forests and the preservation of the country’s rich biodiversity. 

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

130 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 

•	 ARD, Inc. May 2003. Conflict Timber: Dimensions of the Problem in Asia and Africa. USAID Office 

of Transition Initiatives and Asia and Near East Bureaus. Volume 1: 

http://www.usaid.gov/hum response/oti/pubs/vol1synth.pdf 

•	 Biodiversity Support Program. Greening Democracy and Governing the Environment: USAID 

Experiences from the Field: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/asia/greening/greening.html 

•	 Biodiversity Support Program. Governance and Biodiversity—Weaving Resilience into the Web of 

Life: http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/asia/kemala/kemala.html 

•	 Global Forest Watch: http://www.globalforestwatch.org/english/index.htm 
•	 Ribot, Jesse C. 2002. Democratic Decentralization of Natural Resources: Institutionalizing Popular 

Participation. World Resources Institute: http://pdf.wri.org/ddnr_full_revised.pdf 

•	 Ribot, Jesse C. 2004. Waiting for Democracy: The Politics of Choice in Natural Resource 

Decentralization. World Resources Institute: http://pdf.wri.org/wait_for_democracy.pdf 

•	 USAID. Democracy and Governance Web page: Promoting Democracy and Good Governance: 

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/ 

•	 USAID/Indonesia. Strengthened and Decentralized Natural Resources Management, 497-012: 

http://www.usaid.gov/pubs/cbj2003/ane/id/497-012.html 

•	 USAID. USAID Combats Illegal Logging: 

http://www.usaid.gov/locations/asia near east/features/id 081303.html 

•	 USAID. March 2000. Democracy and Governance and Cross-Sectoral Linkages: Philippines: 

http://www.dec.org/pdf docs/PNACG604.pdf 

•	 USAID. December 2001. Linking Democracy and Development: An Idea for the Times. USAID 

Evaluation Highlights No. 75: http://www.dec.org/pdf docs/PNACN179.pdf 

•	 USAID. Nature, Wealth, and Power: Emerging Best Practice for Revitalizing Rural Africa: 

http://www.dec.org/pdf docs/pnacr288.pdf 

•	 World Resources Institute. 2003. Assessing access to information, participation, and justice for the 

environment: A guide. The Access Initiative: 

http://governance.wri.org/pubs description.cfm?PubID=3814 

•	 World Resources Institute. 2003-2004: Decisions for the Earth: Balance, voice, and power: 

http://governance.wri.org/pubs description.cfm?PubID=3764 

•	 Wyckoff-Baird, Barbara, Andrea Kaus, Catherine Christen, and Margaret Keck. 2001. Shifting the 

Power: Decentralization and Biodiversity Conservation. Washington, DC: BSP: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/aam/shifting/Shift Power 00.pdf 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 131 
20.0 GLOBAL CLIMATE 

CHANGE 

KEY QUESTIONS 

How can biodiversity conservation activities most successfully protect ecosystems in the face of global climate 

change? 

How can biodiversity conservation activities help to mitigate global climate change? 

A growing body of scientific evidence shows that growth in greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon 

dioxide (CO2), is leading to an increase in average global temperatures and climactic variability, causing 

potentially dramatic changes to global climate systems and resultant impacts to terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems. As human 

populations and their economies, 

which are highly dependent on 

carbon-based fossil fuels 

continue to grow, emissions of 

greenhouse gases also rise. Since 

climate change affects the global 

environment, human 

populations, and economic 

development, the challenge to 

the global community is to 

sustain economic development 

while limiting the associated 

growth in greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

Loss of biological diversity is 

one of many environmental 

impacts associated with 

changing climatic conditions. 

Past changes in the global 

climate have triggered massive 

shifts in the range of species and 

ecosystems. Today, scientists are 

reporting changes in species 

distribution, population sizes, 

ecological community 

composition, and plant 

productivity in ecosystems 

around the world. For example, 

coral reefs are bleaching, partly 

Coral reef, Wakatobi, S.E. Sulawesi, Indonesia. 

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY 

132 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
due to elevated sea temperatures, and arctic permafrost is melting due to sustained increases in average 

annual temperature. 

In addition to being affected by climate change, terrestrial and marine ecosystems that maintain 

biodiversity also play an important role in regulating the global climate. Through the process of 

photosynthesis, plants and trees in these ecosystems serve as a carbon “sink” by absorbing carbon dioxide 

from the atmosphere and storing it in their biomass and soils. USAID supports many activities related to 

biodiversity conservation and land use that contribute to offsetting emissions of greenhouse gasses and 

associated global climate change. 

KEY QUESTIONS, ISSUES, AND EXAMPLES 

•	 How can biodiversity conservation activities most successfully protect ecosystems in the face of 

global climate change? 

Conservation planners should incorporate the potential effects of regional impacts of climate change 

on biodiversity into conservation and land and water use planning, through such means as planning 

on a larger scale and incorporating multiple elevation zones and resilient areas of ecosystems into 

protected areas. Climate change has the potential to shift the range of a particular species as well as 

the distribution of entire ecosystems; therefore, traditional, strictly delineated protected areas may not 

be sufficient to conserve biodiversity in a changing climate. 

USAID supports the effective conservation and management of resilient networks of marine protected 

areas in several regions, including along the Meso-American Reef in Mexico and Central America; in 

Wakatobi National Park and Raja Ampat, Indonesia; and in Kimbe Bay, Papua New Guinea. 

Activities identify areas of coral reefs that are resilient and resistant to coral bleaching, with the intent 

of setting aside these areas within marine reserves. These protected reefs may then act as “reseeding” 

areas for the rest of the reef which continues to suffer die-off and damage caused by rising sea surface 

temperatures linked to global climate change. 

•	 How can biodiversity conservation activities help to mitigate climate change? 

Biodiversity conservation activities that prevent deforestation or other habitat conversion help to 

sequester and absorb carbon, preventing its release into the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas. 

Additionally, the use of alternative energies, such as solar or wind power, has the potential to prevent 

negative impacts on biodiversity (reducing fuelwood collection) and the climate (less fuel combustion 

that causes the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere). 

In Africa, CARPE focuses efforts in 11 specific landscapes located across the Congo Basin, which 

holds massive expanses of closed canopy tropical forest. The region is threatened by unsustainable 

timber exploitation, shifting cultivation, urban expansion, and decades of human conflict. In addition 

to providing other valuable ecosystem services, the large, forested area of the Congo Basin serves as a 

globally important carbon stock. CARPE’s principal goal is to reduce the rate of forest degradation 

and loss of biodiversity through increased local, national, and regional biodiversity conservation and 

natural resources management measures. Key activities include protected area management, natural 

resources management planning, improved logging policies, sustainable forest use by local 

inhabitants, and improved environmental governance. Currently, the Agency’s Global Climate 

Change Team is supporting a study in one of the Congo Basin landscapes to determine the impact of 

reduced impact logging practices on the carbon budget. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 133 
SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

134 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 

•	 Convention on Biological Diversity. Climate Change and Biodiversity: 

http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/cross-cutting/climate/ 

•	 Convention on Biological Diversity. Biodiversity and Climate Change Interlinkages: 

http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/cross-cutting/climate/interlinkages.asp 

•	 German Federal Environmental Agency. Toolkit: Integration of Biodiversity Concerns in Climate 

Change Mitigation Activities: http://www.umweltdaten.de/medien-e/biodiv.pdf 

•	 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: http://www.ipcc.ch/ 

•	 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Interlinkages Between Biodiversity and 

Climate Change: http://www.biodiv.org/doc/publications/cbd-ts-10.pdf 

•	 Science Development Network. How biodiversity and climate change interact: 

http://www.scidev.net/dossiers/index.cfm?fuseaction=policybrief&dossier=11&policy=46 

•	 The Nature Conservancy. Global Climate Change Initiative: 

http://nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/ 

•	 USAID. Climate Change Program: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/environment/climate/index.html 

•	 World Resources Institute. Climate, Biodiversity, and Forests: Issues and Opportunities Emerging 

from the Kyoto Protocol: http://forests.wri.org/pubs description.cfm?PubID=2956 
21.0 HUMANITARIAN 

ASSISTANCE AND 

DISASTER RESPONSE 

KEY QUESTIONS 

How can USAID activities help to reduce the negative environmental effects of disaster induced displacements 

of people? 

What are potential effects of aid or reconstruction activities on local ecosystems and natural resources? 

Who are the key environmental points of contact in a country, and how can USAID staff encourage their 

mobilization to address environmental issues in the early phases of a disaster? 

Natural disasters and conflict-induced emergencies can have serious negative impacts on the health of 

ecosystems and local population’s control of, and access to, natural resources. Additionally healthy, intact 

ecosystems can play an important role in mitigating the negative effects of natural disasters. 

Due to the prioritized imperative in humanitarian assistance and reconstruction activities of saving lives 

and relieving human suffering as quickly as possible, environmental considerations are often disregarded 

by planners and responders. Accumulated experience has shown us, however, that to not address actual or 

potential environmental threats to biodiversity only leads to increased threats that must be mitigated later 

on, almost always at a much higher human, monetary, and environmental cost. 

During an emergency, the top priority of the relief sector is to save human lives. At the same time, during 

and immediately following a crisis, local environment and natural resources are often vulnerable, and as a 

result, many relief and development operations can have adverse environmental impacts. For instance, 

without careful consideration for their siting, camps for displaced people can harm ecosystems through 

their setup, infrastructure, water and sanitation, food distribution, fuel collection, and agricultural 

practices. In the case of long-standing crises, resettlement camps can take on a more permanent function 

than originally anticipated. Such scenarios present particular environmental management challenges in 

terms of refugees’ need for fuelwood, water, more permanent housing materials, and bushmeat. Sources 

for many of these resources may lie outside of the camp. 

These types of impacts can be significantly reduced if relief and development sectors integrate 

environmental considerations in the planning stages. Collaborative planning with governments, local 

stakeholders, relief organizations, and environmental actors can identify mutually agreed-upon responses 

that are both culturally and environmentally appropriate. Understanding and addressing gender issues is 

crucial, as women may be more vulnerable to disasters due to reduced access to resources, domestic 

burdens in shelters or camps (gathering water and fuelwood, cooking), and overrepresentation in the 

agricultural and informal sectors—areas most often heavily hit by disaster. Environmental damage from 

humanitarian or reconstruction operations is far less costly to prevent or mitigate than to repair. Moreover, 

all parties involved in humanitarian relief, reconstruction, and development have a powerful incentive to 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 135 
collaborate in biodiversity conservation activities, simply because the livelihoods and ultimate survival of 

local communities and refugees alike depend on natural resources and healthy ecosystems. 

Additionally, intact ecosystems such as forests and coral reefs can play a significant role in protecting 

human populations from the full brunt of natural disasters. In the case of the 2004 Asian Tsunami, areas 

of coastline that had intact and healthy coral reefs (such as the Maldives) or mangrove forests for the most 

part suffered fewer deaths and less destruction of human property and infrastructure than in adjacent 

areas, where unplanned or badly planned coastal development had stripped the area of natural ecosystems. 

Similarly, forests can act to stabilize hillsides which would otherwise be prone to dangerous landslides. 

Highly denuded (deforested) regions, such as the Philippines, chronically suffer from deadly damaging 

landslides, like the slide and flooding that killed over 8,000 people in 1991 on Leyte Island. Central 

America, as a result of Hurricane Mitch, suffered even greater human losses due to habitat destruction and 

poor planning. These examples illustrate how the loss of these ecosystems can result in increased human 

suffering and importantly how intact, natural ecosystems can significantly buffer against the full impact 

of natural calamities. 

KEY QUESTIONS, ISSUES AND EXAMPLES 

•	 How can USAID activities help to reduce the negative environmental effects of disaster-induced 

displacements of people? 

Conflicts and natural disasters often cause affected populations to move temporarily from their homes 

to escape harm or seek assistance. The new environments that they move to often cannot sustain the 

additional burden of a larger human population. Competition and conflict between the displaced and 

local groups can break out over control and access to such life-sustaining resources as water, crops, 

fodder for animals, and fuelwood. Early consideration of these problems can help determine effective 

ways to better share assets and reduce the impact on local ecosystems. 

A new methodology, the rapid environmental assessment (REA), developed by implementing 

partners with Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance support, can help determine environmental 

issues and risks in a disaster context and provide a foundation to effectively address them. In 

Ethiopia, the application of REA has enabled international and local NGOs and governmental 

representatives to prioritize environmental issues and help determine how the country can move away 

from yearly food assistance toward more self-sufficiency. 

•	 What are potential effects of aid or reconstruction activities on local ecosystems and natural 

resources? 

The influx of personnel, vehicles, and the other items associated with humanitarian assistance or the 

materials needed for reconstruction operations, can exact a significant toll on local ecosystems. 

Environmentally sensitive early planning can help ensure that ecosystems and natural resources are 

used in a sustainable manner. “Green procurement”—the acquisition and use of ecosystem-friendly 

materials and goods—should be a part of all humanitarian assistance or reconstruction initiatives. 

Livelihoods that involve productive resources programs must be designed and implemented with 

medium- to long-term environmental and livelihood interests in mind. 

For example, as a result of the destruction inflicted to parts of Indonesia by the 2004 Tsunami, the 

World Wildlife Fund launched the Timber for Aceh initiative, bringing together a public-private 

alliance including the Indonesian government, other humanitarian aid, and environmental NGOs, as 

well as the private sector. This initiative seeks the donation of responsibly managed wood from U.S.

based forest product companies for the rebuilding of homes, hospitals, and crucial fishing infrastructure 

in the region. The alliance works for sustainable reconstruction in the region while protecting 

Indonesia’s forests and ultimately acts to mitigate the negative impacts of future natural disasters. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 

­

136 
•	 Who are the key environmental points of contact in a country, and how can USAID staff 

encourage their mobilization to address environmental issues in the early phases of a disaster? 

One of the reasons that environmental issues are often not addressed adequately or early enough is 

insufficient planning and coordination before disasters strike in order to facilitate response during the 

intense phases of a crisis. USAID missions should make contact with local, regional, and state 

environmental points of contact before a disaster hits to anticipate impacts on local ecosystems and 

concrete steps that could be taken to mitigate them. 

In many nations where USAID works, hurricane- or typhoon-generated natural disasters are an annual 

event and ecosystem destruction has led to severe deforestation, erosion, and habitat destruction. 

Where the opportunity exists for USAID to collaborate with a national disaster prevention agency, the 

mission could help agency personnel to engage local populations in determining ways to reduce 

ecosystem degradation and vulnerability to destruction, harvest losses, and human lives. 

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 137 

•	 Aguilar, Lorena. 2004. Climate Change and Disaster Mitigation: Gender Makes the Difference: 

http://www.iucn.org/congress/women/Climate.pdf 

•	 Kelly, Charles. 2003. Guidelines for Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment in Disasters. Benfield 

Hazard Research Center: http://www.forcedmigration.org/sphere/pdf/shelter/benfield-hazard/reaguidelines-4-2.pdf 

•	 Organization for Economic Coopercation and Development. 1994. Developmental Assistance 

Committee Guidelines on Aid and Environment. No. 7. Guidelines for Aid Agencies on Disaster 

Mitigation: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/37/7/1887740.pdf 

•	 Pan American Health Organization. Gender and Natural Disasters. GenSalud Program: 

http://www.paho.org/English/DPM/GPP/GH/genderdisasters.pdf 

•	 Shambaugh, James, Judy Oglethorpe, Rebecca Ham, and Sylvia Tognetti. 2001. The Trampled Grass: 

Mitigating the Impacts of Armed Conflict on the Environment, Biodiversity Support Program: 

http://www.dec.org/pdf docs/PNACN551.pdf 

•	 UN Division for the Advancement of Women and the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. 

2001. Environmental Management and the Mitigation of Natural Disasters: A Gender Perspective: 

http://www.generoyambiente.org/ES/act secciones/archivos/615 3 01 01 report%20EGM%20Turkey 

%20final.doc 

•	 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. 2003. An Operations Management Handbook for 

UNHCR’s Partners (see Chapter 3: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/publ 

•	 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. October 2001. Practicing and Promoting Sound 

Environmental Management in Refugee/Returnee Operations: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgibin/texis/vtx/publ 

•	 Wisner, Ben and Piers Blaikie, Terry Cannon and Ian Davis. 2003. At Risk: Natural Hazards, 

People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters, London, Routledge; ISBN 0 415 25216 4; 471 pp. 

•	 World Bank Indicators: Environment. 2001: 

http://www.worldbank.org/data/wdi2001/pdfs/environment.pdf 

•	 World Wildlife Fund: ‘Green Reconstruction’ Vital in the Aftermath of the Tsunami: 

http://worldwildlife.org/news/displayPR.cfm?prID=174 
22.0 HUMAN POPULATION 

AND HEALTH, INCLUDING 

HIV/AIDS 

KEY QUESTIONS 

How do human health or population issues have the potential to enhance, or constrain, the achievement of 

biodiversity conservation results? 

Do synergies with human health and/or population programs exist? 

How can effective linkages be made between population and/or health interventions and biodiversity 

conservation? 

Biodiversity and natural systems are inextricably linked to human populations. A healthy environment 

can provide the clean and safe food, water, medicines, and energy that people need to live healthy lives. 

Effectively functioning ecosystems filter harmful pollutants out of air, water, and soil. A diversity of plant 

and animal life provides more options for meeting food security and nutrition needs of both near and 

distant human populations. 

Increasing human populations coupled with poor development planning can put an enormous strain on 

biodiversity and natural resources. People struggling with poor health and nutrition are often not effective 

agents for conservation. Local capacity to sustainably manage biodiversity can be decimated by illness 

and death caused by diseases like HIV/AIDS. Outbreaks of Ebola and other infectious diseases that move 

across species can threaten human and wildlife populations alike. Extinction of species can limit present 

and future opportunities for deriving beneficial pharmaceutical compounds or expanding food crop 

alternatives. 

For all of these reasons, an integrated approach to human population, health, and environment may be 

warranted in order to achieve biodiversity conservation objectives. Clearly, not every program should be 

expected to address all of these complex and interrelated issues. However, given the primary importance 

that health, fertility, and population issues tend to play in the lives of humans, particularly the poor, these 

dimensions of biodiversity conservation may provide credible entry points for working with relevant 

communities and other partners. By addressing issues in an integrated way, there is often a greater 

potential for engendering broad buy-in for a complementary suite of conservation and human 

development goals. 

138 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
KEY QUESTIONS, ISSUES AND EXAMPLES 

•	 How do human health or population issues have the potential to enhance, or constrain, the 

achievement of biodiversity conservation results? 

In many cases, the sustainability of conservation results can either be threatened by or secured 

through changing population demographics and health concerns. For example, rapidly expanding 

human populations may exceed sustainable rates of resource consumption and put pressures on 

biodiversity. Alternatively, concerns and education regarding disease transmission between wildlife 

and humans can effectively curtail the human consumption of certain species known to be disease 

vectors, thus decreasing the pressure on this species and the prevalence of these diseases in human 

populations. A good understanding of the threats, opportunities and synergies between human health, 

population and biodiversity conservation can lead to more successful conservation activities. 

Ebola is a life-threatening virus for humans and apes that can be transmitted in a variety of ways. 

Beyond direct impacts on local populations, the occurrence of Ebola outbreaks in a region also limits 

the potential to generate income from ecotourism activities. In response to outbreaks of the disease in 

Central Africa, the Wildlife Conservation Society is working with the U.S. Peace Corps, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, USAID and other partners to provide remote communities with appropriate 

education on disease transmission and strategies for protecting themselves. In this way, they can 

prevent future outbreaks that threaten to decimate both human and wildlife populations alike. 

•	 Do synergies with human health and/or population programs exist? 

In many cases the tools and technologies for meaningful interventions in population, health, and 

biodiversity conservation already exist. Often the greater challenge lies in finding ways for different 

programs and stakeholders who do not traditionally work together to effectively form partnerships 

around common objectives. When this is done well, synergies can be exploited and movement toward 

sustainability undertaken. 

In Madagascar, USAID’s Environmental Health Project supports the Voahary Salama Association, an 

NGO umbrella organization that includes both local and international health and conservation 

organizations. The organization is focused on linking natural resources management and family 

planning activities in three major forest corridors critical for biodiversity conservation. Through 

education, technical assistance, extension services, and other interventions, diverse NGO partners 

work with local communities to better understand the linkages between family planning, nutrition, 

disease, water sanitation, unsustainable agriculture, and deforestation. Through an integrated 

approach with explicit conservation and health objectives, the practice of slash and burn, a leading 

threat to intact habitats for biodiversity, has decreased from 55 to 25 percent while access to safe 

water has risen from 19 to 24 percent. 

•	 How can effective linkages be made between population and/or health interventions and 

biodiversity conservation? 

In many cases, ‘win-win’ opportunities for human health, population, and biodiversity may exist. For 

example, the restoration of intact upstream forests may also ensure potable water supplies for 

downstream users. The promotion of alternative sources of fuel to replace wood consumption may 

also decrease the occurrence of human respiratory problems. Reforestation may reduce the spread of 

malaria by limiting standing water sources that serve as breeding grounds for mosquitoes. Support for 

integrated community development and conservation in more remote areas may help relieve pressure 

of urban migration, while population programs focused on urban areas may influence the demand for 

consumption of natural resources. Yet for any of these interventions to be sustainable over the long 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 139 
run, the benefits of biodiversity need to be understood and felt by people. It is important that such 

mutual benefits are recognized as explicitly tied to program activities. 

In Bangladesh, USAID supports activities focused on improved management of open water, forest, 

and biodiversity resources to benefit local communities. Through policy and technical assistance 

activities, community-managed fish sanctuaries have led to an increase in fish production, income for 

poor fishing families, and overall fish biodiversity. Increased protein consumption has also improved 

the health and food security situation for local populations. 

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

140 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 

•	 Africa Biodiversity Collaborative Group: 

http://www.frameweb.org/ev.php?URL ID=6786&URL DO=DO TOPIC&URL SECTION=201&r 

eload=1056639220 

•	 AIDS Toolkits—HIV/AIDS and Community-Based Natural Resources Management. USAID Office 

of Sustainable Development, Africa Bureau. http://www.afr-sd.org/Environment/AIDS Toolkit-150 

res.PDF 

•	 AIDS Brief for Sectoral Planners and Managers—Community-Based Natural Resources 

Management. Development Alternatives, Inc. Washington, DC: USAID Office of Sustainable 

Development, Africa Bureau: http://www.afr-sd.org/Environment/AIDS Brief-all-150 res.pdf 

•	 Chivian. E. ed. 2003. Biodiversity: Its Importance to Human Health. A Project of the Center for 

Health and the Global Environment. Harvard Medical School (under the auspices of the World Health 

Organization, the United Nations Development Program, and the United Nations Environment 

Program): http://www.med.harvard.edu/chge/Biodiversity v2 screen.pdf 

•	 Environmental Health Project: www.ehproject.org 

•	 Margoluis, R. et al. 2001. An Ounce of Prevention—Making the Link between Health and 

Conservation. Washington, DC: BSP: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/aam/ounce/Titlepage.htm 

•	 Melnyk, Mary. 2001. An Ounce of Prevention Literature Review. Washington, DC: BSP: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/ 

•	 Nash, Jonathan. 2001. Healthy People Need Healthy Forests. Population Reference Bureau. 

http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Section=PRB&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cf 

m&ContentID=5772 

•	 Wildlife Conservation Society. AHEAD Program: http://www.wcs.org/wcspubs/wcsreports/460166 
23.0 NONRENEWABLE 

EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRY: 

ENERGY AND MINING 

KEY QUESTION 

Does the design of biodiversity conservation activities take into account the threats to biodiversity of local, 

regional, and national energy needs and mining operations? 

Nonrenewable extractive industries extract and sell nonrenewable resources such as minerals and 

hydrocarbons. The extraction of these resources often poses special challenges for biodiversity conservation. 

In many parts of the world, areas with high hydrocarbon extraction potential correspond closely with some 

of the most environmentally sensitive areas. Issues of biodiversity conservation and extractive industries are 

often highly politicized, and can lead to conflict. 

Energy and mineral resources are central to economic and social development activities, such as water 

supply and sanitation, transportation, telecommunications, and health and medical services. Provision of 

energy services can stimulate wealth-creating activities to help bring the poor into the mainstream of national 

and political life, as well as to strengthen democratic structures and governance frameworks. 

Global energy demand is projected to increase significantly over the next few decades, primarily to meet 

growing demand for electricity and transportation, especially from the developing world. Despite growing 

energy use in these countries, per capita energy consumption between developing and developed nations 

likely will continue to differ greatly. For example, the average individual in India uses only one-fortieth of 

the energy used by the average individual in the United States. Nevertheless, increases in energy 

consumption will lead to increased impacts on biodiversity. 

KEY QUESTION, ISSUES AND EXAMPLES 

•	 Does the design of biodiversity conservation activities take into account the threats to 

biodiversity by local, regional, and national energy needs and mining operations? 

By taking a threats-based approach to biodiversity conservation, current and potential threats posed by 

local and national energy needs can be identified, addressed, and mitigated on various scales through 

multisectoral stakeholder participation (see Chapter 7, Designing Activities). To better understand 

relationships between energy services and biodiversity conservation, it is helpful to consider the energy 

chain. The energy chain tracks energy from the raw resource extraction (e.g., oil/gas from a well, coal 

from a mine) through transportation, processing, and distribution to the end use (i.e., electricity 

generation, transmission, and distribution; gasoline for transportation). All the steps along the energy 

chain, from production and transport of the fuel to actual use/combustion of the fuel, have the potential 

to impact biodiversity. At the macro level, the extraction and transport of a resource, such as petroleum, 

may require surveying and development in areas with high biodiversity, such as lowland tropical 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 141 
forests. Transportation and distribution of fuels or electricity may require roads, railroads, pipelines, 

seaport facilities, or transmission lines. Processing of fuels and generation of electricity will require 

industrial-scale facilities, with associated transportation or distribution infrastructure. Biodiversity 

impacts will mostly derive from the siting of the facilities, although impacts from operations (e.g., 

greenhouse gas emissions, waste, and other effluents; leakages from operational inefficiencies) may 

also occur. The migration of human populations to environmentally sensitive areas to work with megaenergy and mining operations is another serious secondary impact of these industries. The processing 

chain for mineral resources can be similar and pose similar challenges for biodiversity conservation. 

Through policy and technical support, USAID engages at several levels in extractive industry. In many 

cases, USAID comes into the discussion, once the tension level is already high, on publicly financed 

activities with perceived high-potential negative environmental impact. USAID has been very active in 

a number of these debates at the country level, and has also been engaged from Washington. Regardless 

of the type of nonrenewable resource or the entry point, mitigation of environmental impacts of energy 

and mining projects on biodiversity at all steps of the energy chain should be a priority for 

policymakers and practitioners at the international, national, and local levels. In the past few years, 

particular focus has been given to the identification and dissemination of best practices, including 

identification of “no-go” areas, the development of social and environmental contracts between 

industry, local stakeholders, and transparency in decision making. Further, there are several areas in 

which USAID can focus its efforts: 

At the policy level: 

−	 Engaging in national, regional, or international dialogue on planning of extractive industry 

investments, siting, and/or identification and dissemination of best practices. USAID’s support, 

where politically appropriate, can help bring appropriate stakeholders to the table, or raise the 

profile of environmental and social issues; and 

−	 Reviewing proposed multilateral development bank support for investments in nonrenewable 

extractive projects, particularly with regard to their environmental impact assessments. 

At the project level: 

−	 Direct support for activities designed to promote best practices in extractive industry or leverage 

industrial investment to advance USAID goals. USAID can provide support to leverage additional 

environmental investment in a region, taking advantage of the industry’s initial investment or 

technical resources. Several recent public-private alliances have provided this type of support. 

−	 Support for energy-efficient practices and technology. Investing in energy efficiency is the most 

cost-effective means of meeting energy demand without resorting to additional energy 

extraction/generation. Reduced energy consumption can delay the need for costly investments in 

energy supply infrastructure, thereby lessening impact on biodiversity and saving scarce financial 

resources for other uses. In addition, numerous technologies exist that can help mitigate 

environmental impacts of energy production and consumption. 

−	 Support for utilization of alternative energy sources. Utilizing alternative sources of energy is one 

way to minimize impacts on biodiversity while delivering high quality, low cost fuel. Alternative 

energy sources such as solar, wind, and micro-hydro power are energy options that, despite 

sometimes high upfront costs, can be cost-effective and have low impact on biodiversity and the 

environment throughout the energy chain. 

−	 Support for effective governance structures. Impacts on biodiversity are often greater in countries that 

lack effective legal and regulatory regimes for environmental protection as well as the energy and 

mining sectors. Efforts to improve environmental policymaking, monitoring, and enforcement may 

help prevent or alleviate environmental degradation resulting from energy and mining activities. 

−	 Support for post-mining remediation (e.g., reforestation) programs. 

142 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 143 

•	 Efficient Energy for Sustainable Development: http://www.getf.org/cleanenergy/ 

•	 Energy and Biodiversity Initiative: http://www.theebi.org/ 

•	 Global Village Energy Partnership Online: http://www.gvep.org 

•	 Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership: http://www.reeep.org/ 

•	 World Bank Environment, Health, and Safety Guidelines: Mining and Milling: http://www.naturalresources.org/minerals/CD/twb.htm#Guidelines and http://www.naturalresources.org/minerals/CD/energy.htm#General 

•	 World Conservation Union. Mining and Biodiversity Conservation: Best Practices Dialogue: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/business/mining/index.htm 

•	 World Conservation Union. Working Group on Extractives Industries and Biodiversity: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/business/mining/WGEIB.htm 

•	 World Resources Institute. The Electricity Governance Initiative: International Financial Flows and 

the Environment Project with the Access Initiative, Prayas-Pune and the National Institute of Public 

Finance and Policy: http://electricitygovernance.wri.org 
24.0 URBAN ISSUES 
 

KEY QUESTIONS 

How can the planning and design of biodiversity conservation activities take into account the effects of urban 

areas on ecosystems? 

How can well planned urban areas promote the conservation of biodiversity? 

The world in which USAID works today is increasingly urban. About 50 percent of the families in 

developing countries currently reside in cities and towns. In the next 30 years the world’s population will 

grow by 2.2 billion people. Of these, 2.1 billion will be born in cities and 2.0 billion will be born in the 

world’s poorest cities. This means that over 90 percent of the world’s population growth in the coming 

two decades will occur in developing cities—most of it in urban slums. Urban areas can have negative 

impacts on biodiversity, but they also hold the potential for alleviating pressure on local ecosystems. 

Rapid urban growth with no or poor planning, partly a result of rural-urban migration, can have a 

dramatic effect on people’s quality of life with loss and fragmentation of native habitat, the subsequent 

extinction of species, and the replacement of native with nonnative species. Dense human populations 

also may have increasing consumption and resource use, waste generation, freshwater use, and local and 

downstream pollution, all of which negatively impact ecosystems. Conversely, by concentrating people in 

urban areas, there is the potential for improved efficiency in the utilization of environmental services and 

natural resources, as well as 

economies of scale for 

infrastructure such as water 

treatment, sanitation, and waste 

management. Well-planned, 

dense urban areas also have the 

potential to concentrate 

populations in previously settled 

areas, thus avoiding further 

settlement in intact, biodiverse 

ecosystems. Intact forest 

ecosystems also often play an 

important role in stabilizing 

hillsides surrounding cities, 

preventing the increased threat of 

devastating landslides and 

flooding posed by denuded, 

deforested uplands. 

Urban areas also offer the 

opportunity of educating and 

mobilizing large numbers of people around environmental issues, as well as creating markets for 

sustainably produced goods, NTFPs, and ecotourism ventures. The mobilization of citizens of urban areas 

provides an opportunity to build civic values and promulgate national laws, regulations, and policies 

144 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 

Belem, Brazil urban area abutting tropical forest. 

ERIC STONER, USAID/BRAZIL 
based on ecologically sound development principles that seek to balance urban development needs with 

biodiversity and ecosystem conservation. 

KEY QUESTIONS, ISSUES AND EXAMPLES 

•	 How can the planning and design of biodiversity conservation activities take into account the 

effects of urban areas on ecosystems? 

On a landscape level, through a threats analysis, USAID mission staff frequently identify those areas 

where high biodiversity value are adjacent to, and threatened by, areas of intense human land use and 

urbanization, while designing and planning biodiversity conservation activities. Depending on 

feasibility and other biodiversity conservation needs, these areas should be priorities for conservation 

initiatives. Practitioners should design programs that mitigate threats posed by urban areas but also 

take advantage of the opportunities urban areas may provide to enhance and support conservation 

activities. 

In El Salvador, USAID supports the establishment of payment systems for watershed services. In the 

city of Caro Sucia, residents pay an extra 11 cents to their regular monthly $2 water fee to support the 

management of El Imposible National Park. The revenues pay for hiring park guards who help ensure 

that the forest will remain intact, conserving biodiveristy, and providing clean drinking water to the 

downstream city. 

•	 How can well-planned urban areas promote the conservation of biodiversity? 

Given limited resources and the immense challenges of urban planning in the developing world, there 

is a tendency for city managers to resort to an ad hoc “bandaid” approach to land use and 

environmental management, resulting in negative impacts on biodiverse ecosystems. The high cost of 

environmental cleanup and treatment and the irreversibility of biodiversity loss should encourage 

urban professionals and elected officials to think creatively about how they can reduce the amount of 

pollution that is produced and the per capita consumption of natural resources. USAID staff can work 

with city planners and officials to design and implement longer-term, environmentally sustainable, 

urban growth management goals to conserve biodiversity while improving urban quality of life. Some 

ways that USAID staff can help is with urban land use planning, demand/consumption management, 

public-private partnerships, and influencing the creation of incentives and policy for improving 

technological efficiency and decreasing pollution. 

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 145 

•	 Global Development Research Center. Urban Environmental Management: http://www.gdrc.org/uem/ 

•	 Man and Biosphere Urban Group: http://www.unesco.org/mab/urban/urbanhome.htm 

•	 United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. 2000. The Role of MAB with 

Regard to Urban and Peri-Urban Issues, International Coordinating Council of the MAB Program: 

http://www.unesco.org/mab/urban/Urban.PDF 

•	 UN-HABITAT/United Nations Environment Program. The Sustainable Cities Program: 

http://www.unchs.org/programmes/sustainablecities/ 

•	 USAID. Making Cities Work: http://www.makingcitieswork.org/ and Cities Alliance: Cities Without 

Slums: http://www.citiesalliance.org 
25.0 WATERSHEDS AND 

WATER RESOURCES 

KEY QUESTIONS 

How can biodiversity conservation contribute to achieving the goals of IWRM? 

How can a focus on watershed or basin-scale governance models and approaches benefit biodiversity 

conservation goals? 

Will a watershed or basin scale management approach provide additional opportunities for sustainable 

conservation financing? 

Working at the watershed scale is increasingly common in USAID environmental programs in general, 

and in biodiversity conservation programs in particular. Watershed management often involves more than 

biodiversity conservation, and not all biodiversity concerns can be addressed by employing a watershed 

approach. However, there are many situations where management at the watershed or river-basin scale is 

both effective and desirable to meet biodiversity conservation ends as well as broader sustainable water 

management objectives. 

USAID supports the internationally recognized Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) 

approach in its water resources and watershed management programs. This approach promotes the 

coordinated development and management of water, land, and related resources in order to maximize 

economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital 

ecosystems. IWRM recognizes that properly allocating and managing water resources is important for 

sustaining ecosystem health. This approach also recognizes that protecting the natural ecosystems that cover 

watersheds is essential for providing environmental goods and services for people—such as clean water— 

on a sustainable basis. Using a watershed or river basin as the landscape unit for management is an 

approach that can help to achieve truly integrated ecosystem management and biodiversity conservation. 

KEY QUESTIONS, ISSUES, AND EXAMPLES 

• How can biodiversity conservation contribute to achieving the goals of IWRM? 

There is a potentially mutually supportive relationship between watershed management/IWRM and 

biodiversity conservation goals and approaches. Biodiversity stakeholders in watersheds or river 

basins (and the coastal and marine zones they influence) that are valued for their biological diversity 

and productivity (e.g., fisheries) or ecosystem services (e.g., water purification) can more easily 

articulate and defend ecosystems as a legitimate user of water resources. In the same way, 

biodiversity conservation activities can have a very direct positive effect on sustaining the supply of 

high quality water of sufficient quantity for a wide range of human uses. 

USAID/RCSA recently launched a transboundary river basin management program in the highly 

biodiverse Okavango River basin shared by Namibia, Botswana, and Angola. The program seeks to 

146 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
mitigate competition and conflict among riparian states for scarce water resources while maintaining 

the health of the critical Okavango Delta ecosystem. This will be achieved through governance and 

management approaches that stress the sharing of benefits, including a wide range of biodiversity and 

ecosystem goods and services provided by the intact watershed system. 

•	 How can a focus on watershed or basin-scale governance models and approaches benefit 

biodiversity conservation goals? 

Because of the importance of water resources for many human activities, there can be greater political 

will to act at the watershed scale than in other landscape units or sites. In addition, an effective, 

multisectoral watershed management approach requires the involvement of a broad range of 

stakeholders that may not normally be engaged in “conservation” projects, potentially yielding 

broader constituencies in support of the biodiversity values and ecosystem services of the basin. 

Panama has the highest level political endorsement and support for management of the critically 

important Panama Canal Watershed, and has put in place a legal and institutional framework to 

support management at the basin scale. To complement the national structure, USAID/Panama has 

supported strengthening of broad-based stakeholder involvement in governance at the subwatershed 

level, as well as sustainable management activities on the ground to most effectively achieve 

biodiversity goals and long-term sustainability of the ecological processes of the watershed. 

•	 Will a watershed or basin-scale management approach provide additional opportunities for 

sustainable conservation financing? 

Taking a watershed approach can involve payment for ecosystem services as well as other revenuegenerating schemes (e.g., water supply tariffs, pollution taxes, tourism fees), and these may provide 

mechanisms for sustainable conservation financing. 

USAID has worked with The Nature Conservancy and other organizations to support work on 

watershed management fees in Latin America. Under these Payment for Environmental Services 

(PES) schemes, a portion of the urban water supply tariff is applied to the protection and management 

of upper watershed areas that serve as the source for clean, potable water supply. 

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 147 

•	 Global Water Partnership IWRM Toolbox: http://gwpforum.netmasters05.netmasters.nl/en/index.html 

•	 Environmental Protection Agency. Aquatic Biodiversity: http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators/aquatic/ 

•	 International Development Research Center. Global Initiatives for Improved Management of Aquatic 

Biodiversity: http://web.idrc.ca/en/ev-67649-201-1-DO TOPIC.html 

•	 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands: http://www.ramsar.org/ 

•	 Ramsar/Convention on Biological Diversity. River Basin Initiative: 

http://www.ramsar.org/key rbi index.htm 

•	 World Conservation Union. Water and Nature Initiative: http://www.waterandnature.org 

•	 World Conservation Union. 2004. Flow: The Essentials of Environmental Flow: 

http://www.waterandnature.org/flow/main.html 

•	 World Conservation Union. 2005. Value: Counting Ecosystems as Water Infrastructure: 

http://www.waterandnature.org/value/index.html 

V. USAID PROGRAM 

INFORMATION 

26.0 Implementing Mechanisms and Partners
 

27.0 International Treaties
 

28.0 U.S. Legislation
 

29.0 USAID Regulations
 

Bromeliads in a community conserved area in the USAIDsupported Parks in Peril Central Selva site, Peru. 

HANNAH FAIRBANK, USAID/EGAT/NRM/B 

26.0 IMPLEMENTING

 MECHANISMS AND 

 PARTNERS 

USAID programs and activities are 

implemented through three main 

kinds of procurement vehicles: 

acquisition, assistance, and 

interagency agreements. Please note 

that the primary reference for 

information on acquisition and 

assistance is found on the USAID 

ADS, series 300, 

(http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/ 

300/). 

USAID policies do not favor one or 

the other of these mechanisms, but 

they do recognize that each has 

unique advantages and constraints, 

some of which are described in Table 

2 (http://www.usaid.gov/pubs/ads/ 

300). In selecting which mechanism 

to use, USAID program managers 

should carefully assess what role the 

Agency wants to play in implementation. With acquisition, USAID states what services, goods, or 

“results” it wants to buy, and then manages, monitors, and evaluates the contractor’s performance in 

providing these. USAID decides the requirements and standards and frequently provides technical 

direction during contract implementation. With assistance, USAID has more limited involvement in the 

design and management of the activity. The program is largely that of the grantee, with USAID 

assessing—prior to awarding the grant—that the proposed program appears to support a given strategic 

objective. The cooperative agreement creates a situation where “substantial involvement is anticipated 

between USAID and the recipient during the performance of the proposed activity” (ibid.), but 

“substantial involvement” is statutorily limited and does not allow the Agency to exercise a high level of 

control over the cooperating organization. In some instances, such as in politically sensitive situations, it 

may be necessary or desirable for USAID to have more oversight and control. In such a case, acquisition 

might be a better mechanism than assistance. On the other hand, assistance mechanisms may be 

appropriate where a long-term organizational commitment to a site is desirable beyond the anticipated 

USAID support. No matter which mechanism is used, it is important that USAID’s implementers and 

partners be able to work effectively with the key stakeholders, including the national government of the 

country. 

BULGARIA BCEG PROJECT, ARD, INC. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 151 

U.S. Ambassador to Bulgaria, James Pardew, hands over 

Bulgaria's first National Ecotourism Strategy and Action Plan to 

the Prime Minister of Bulgaria, Simeon Saxe-Coburg Gotha. 

The Minister of Environment and Waters, Delores Arssenova, 

looks on (2004). 
TABLE 2. IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMS AND USAID ROLE AND LEVEL OF
 

INVOLVEMENT
 

Mechanism USAID’s Role USAID’s Level of Involvement 

Acquisition 

• Contracts 

• Purchase Orders 

• Delivery Orders 

• Task Orders 

“buy” 

“manage” 

“approve” 

Sets requirements and standards 

Provides technical direction during contract period 

Evaluates deliverables 

Assistance— 

• Grants 

• Cooperative Agreements 

(e.g., Leader with 

Associates) 

“sponsor” 

“monitor” 

“substantial 

involvement” 

“partnership” 

Has no formal authority to direct the activity 

Assesses grantee qualifications and capabilities prior to award 

Negotiates and approves activities through some mechanism 

(e.g., an annual work plan) 

Interagency Agreements “partner” 

“collaborate” 

ACQUISITION 

Acquisition involves buying or contracting for goods, services, or results. In most cases, USAID contracts 

for-profit, private sector organizations to provide services and goods to further mission objectives. 

Contracts must be competitively bid, and do not require cost sharing. Acquisition allows more technical 

control by USAID managers than grants, cooperative agreements, or interagency agreements. For 

example, a consulting firm could be hired to conduct a media campaign to raise national awareness of 

forest loss or threats to an endangered species, or contracted to design and manage a watershed 

conservation project. 

A special type of contract is an Indefinite Quantity Contract (IQC). An IQC is a mechanism for 

contracting both short- and long-term technical assistance within a specific area of expertise (e.g., natural 

resources management, policy, water, energy, environmental education). IQCs have been developed to 

provide a simplified and timely contracting mechanism for USAID bureaus and missions to use in 

response to emerging needs. Advantages to using this kind of contract include (1) flexibility with respect 

to delivery scheduling, (2) services are ordered only after an actual need has materialized, and (3) Agency 

obligation is limited (an IQC has a low minimum of services that must be contracted over a given time). 

IQC prime contractors are chosen through a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process. Each 

prime contractor is affiliated with a group of subcontractors whose expertise can be used in response to 

task order needs. Typically, task orders must be available for bidding by all IQC primes, unless there is a 

“set-aside” for small businesses. This bidding process is streamlined and significantly reduces the burden 

on USAID technical and procurement staff, in comparison to a full and open competition. Task orders 

may not specify which subcontractors should carry out the work. They should specify distinct products or 

“deliverables.” 

152 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
ASSISTANCE 

Assistance includes grants and cooperative agreements to organizations, usually an NGO, private 

voluntary organization (PVO), or community-based organization (CBO), to support activities contributing 

to USAID’s strategic objectives. There is little (cooperative agreement) or no (grant) technical control or 

input by USAID managers. For example, USAID could fund a national environmental NGO that is 

working with local communities on sustainable utilization of wild animal or plant products. Grants and 

cooperative agreements are distinguished by the level of involvement anticipated between USAID and 

the implementing partner (please see Table 2 for more information). Grants and cooperative agreements 

may be awarded competitively or noncompetitively to unsolicited proposals under certain circumstances 

(please see description below of Leader with Associates grants for exceptions) and usually require some 

cost sharing from the grantee. Competition for assistance mechanisms is carried out through a Request for 

Application (RFA) or through an Annual Program Statement (APS). 

Leader with Associates grants and cooperative agreements are assistance mechanisms managed from a 

pillar bureau. Leader Awards are made in response to a competitive RFA issued at the request of a pillar 

bureau. The Leader Awards are given to cover a specified worldwide activity. Associate Awards (grants 

or cooperative agreements) are separate activities that fit within the broader program description of a 

Leader Award. Associate Awards have separate budgets and reporting requirements, but are otherwise 

covered by the terms and conditions of the Leader Award. The benefits of this mechanism include (1) no 

competition required for mission awards under the Leader/Associate grant, (2) simplified procurement 

procedures for recipients and USAID, and (3) direct partnership and reporting directly between missions 

and recipients is allowed. Notably, the private sector can receive a grant or cooperative agreement, they 

simply cannot take profits. Conversely, an NGO can receive a contract, but again no profit may be taken. 

INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS 

Interagency Agreements (IAAs) are agreements with other U.S. government agencies to share staff and 

expertise and to collaborate on joint programs, such as Resources Support Services Agreements/ 

Participating Agency Service Agreements (RSSAs/PASAs) with the USDA and U.S. universities. IAAs 

can also allow USAID to carry out a program through other U.S. government agencies. For example, a 

USAID mission could work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to monitor trade in endangered 

species products in a given country, or with the Centers for Disease Control to monitor emerging viral 

diseases related to forest clearance or the bushmeat trade. It could collaborate with the U.S. Forest Service 

on a forest management project, with the National Park Service on training park managers or interpreters, 

or with the U.S. Peace Corps on environmental education in schools. 

Centrally established contract mechanisms that address different facets of biodiversity conservation 

include: 

• Environmental Education and Communication (GreenCOM) Project 

Contractor: The Academy for Educational Development: http://www.greencom.org. 

• Integrated Water and Coastal Resources Management IQC. Contractors: 

− ARD, Inc.: http://water.ardinc.com, 

− Chemonics International: http://www.ridgetoreef.com/en/index.aspx, 

− Development Alternatives, Inc.: http://www.wateriqc.com, 

− International Resources Group and Tetra Tech, Inc.: http://www.irgltd.com, or 

− PA Consulting: www.paconsulting.com/. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 153 
•	 Rural and Agricultural Incomes with a Sustainable Environment (RAISE) PLUS IQC: 

http://www.raise.org 

Contractors: ABT, ARD, Inc., Development Alternatives, Inc., Fintrac, and Weidemann Associates. 

•	 Environmental Policy and Institutional Strengthening IQC (EPIQ 2): http://www.epiq2.com/ 

Contractors: International Resources Group, Chemonics International, Inc., and PA Government 

Services, Inc. 

Examples of grant and Cooperative Agreement mechanisms established by USAID/Washington to 

promote biodiversity conservation include: 

•	 The Global Conservation Program: This program involves six Leader with Associates Cooperative 

Agreements with large NGOs: African Wildlife Foundation, Conservation International, Enterprise 

Works Worldwide, The Nature Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Society, and World Wildlife 

Fund. 

•	 Parks in Peril: A Cooperative Agreement with The Nature Conservancy. 

Integrated Management of Coastal and Freshwater Systems (IMCAFS): This program has two Leader 

with Associates Cooperative Agreements focused on coastal resources management (led by the University 

of Rhode Island) and integrated freshwater management (led by Florida International University), 

respectively. 

Interagency Agreements used to support biodiversity conservation include: 

•	 International Forestry Program. Collaborating Agency: U.S. Forest Service. 

•	 International Technical Assistance Program. Collaborating Agency: U.S. Department of Interior. 

IMPLEMENTING ORGANIZATIONS 

USAID has increasingly focused on building alliances with a broader range of partners. In particular, 

USAID has placed increasing emphasis on expanding public-private partnerships. Traditional 

conservation partners include both private consulting firms and conservation NGOs. Private civil 

organizations—such as conservation, development, and community NGOs—may be uniquely qualified to 

deliver services and project management on the ground if they have the necessary local knowledge and 

resources. Private sector partners in alliances may bring access to a new or broader set of stakeholders and 

resources, and may also offer unique opportunities for broad scale impact and influence. Finally, private 

consulting firms offer professional, targeted expertise and are often organized for quick responsiveness to 

USAID needs. Organizations have different sets of skills and experiences that may or may not be 

appropriate for the threats at a particular site and for particular conservation targets. 

It is important to choose partners who can: 

•	 Effectively address threats at the appropriate scale and sites, 

•	 Ensure the long-term sustainability of the conservation achievements in terms of financing (see 

Chapter 9, Financing Conservation) and human capacity (see Chapter 4, Involving Stakeholders), and 

•	 Disseminate lessons learned. 

154 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
TYPES OF PARTNERSHIPS 

Alliances between the public and private sectors can take several different forms. Contractual 

relationships involve the contracting of a private entity by a public agency to provide goods or a service 

to the public—for example, a municipal government hiring a private engineering firm to clean up a 

polluted river. In these cases, the contracted organization usually does not have any decision-making 

ability or any liability for the success or failure of the project. In a partnership, the public and private 

entities jointly provide the service and share in all decision making, liability, and information exchange. 

An example of such an arrangement might involve a country’s wildlife department working cooperatively 

with an international conservation organization to develop, implement, and enforce the management plan 

for a national park. A consortium has the same characteristics as a partnership, but generally involves 

three or more parties—for example, a national wildlife department, an international conservation 

organization, and a local university’s biology department. 

USAID has increasingly focused on building alliances with a broader range of partners. New procurement 

processes, such as the APS, have developed to increase flexibility in USAID’s programming. For more 

information on alliances at USAID, such as the Global Development Alliance program, see 

http://www.usaid.gov/our work/global partnerships/. 

BENEFITS OF PARTNERSHIPS 

Public-private partnerships “add private-sector creativity and flexibility to public-sector accountability 

and credibility” (Ingerson, Alice, 2000). Benefits of partnerships include: 

•	 Increased efficiency and innovation. Private sector organizations are often able to work more quickly 

and flexibly than public sector agencies, which are bound by internal regulations and public approval 

processes. This flexibility allows more opportunities for innovation. On the other hand, governments 

have access to public funding and regulatory enforcement authority and often have a more solid 

mandate from the public. This combination of assets can be extremely effective in providing quick, 

effective, and long-term biodiversity conservation benefits on the ground. 

•	 Increased access to resources without having to expand capacity. By partnering with private NGOs 

or community-based groups to complete projects on the ground, the public sector can access 

additional resources, information, knowledge, people, capacity, and money without having to directly 

increase the size or capacity of its staff. This can increase government’s ability to achieve multiple 

and concurrent objectives. For example, in a project designed to improve protected area enforcement, 

working with local law enforcement agencies and NGOs that have expertise in community 

development, poverty alleviation, and biological management will greatly expand the capacity of the 

project to cover all aspects of encroachment into a protected area. 

•	 Increased representation of interests. At the same time, these partnerships can enable participants to 

expand their points of view, more effectively representing a multitude of ownerships, interests, and 

stakeholder needs. This broader perspective allows them to cover all potential aspects of an issue or 

threat and minimize the chance of conflicts (see Chapter 4, Involving Stakeholders). 

•	 Increased legitimacy, credibility, and support. Often, government agencies have little or no presence 

in an area and thus may have little basis for support or trust among local communities. Partnering 

with a private organization with a history in a local area can increase the legitimacy of government 

involvement and improve the likelihood of local acceptance and support of a project. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 155 
27.0 INTERNATIONAL TREATIES 
 

A treaty is a legally binding, 

international agreement 

between two or more states that 

is governed by the principles 

and practices of international 

law. USAID is subject to all 

international environmental 

treaties ratified by the United 

States and must comply with 

the requirements outlined in the 

treaties. 

Although the State Department 

is primarily responsible for 

negotiating environmental 

treaties, USAID plays a vital 

role in the treaty negotiation 

process by ensuring that 

Agency and mission 

international experience and 

perspectives on development 

and developing countries are 

taken into consideration in the 

evolution of U.S. positions. 

USAID has been influential in 

helping to shape U.S. positions 

at major negotiation rounds for 

many international treaties, 

including the United Nations 

Convention to Combat 

Desertification (UNCCD) and 

the United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change 

(UNFCCC). In addition, the 

Agency provides key technical 

assistance to its developing 

country partners, helping to build their capacity to participate effectively in treaty implementation. 

This section provides a brief overview of some of the more significant international treaties that affect 

USAID programming related to the conservation of biodiversity, natural resources, climate change, and the 

environment. For each of these conventions, USAID mission environmental staff should determine whether 

the country in which they serve is party to the convention and review the status of its implementation in the 

country. Some of these treaties require national action plans of some kind, which can be helpful to USAID 

staff in a given mission in determining priority sites and actions for biodiversity and natural resources 

programs. 

156 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 

Scarlet macaw, Brazil. The scarlet macaw, Ara macao, is protected by 

the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). 

It is listed on CITES Appendix I as a species threatened with extinction, 

and international trade is generally prohibited, unless permits are 

granted under exceptional circumstances. 

ERIC STONER, USAID/BRAZL 
CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (CBD) 

The CBD provides an internationally recognized framework within which countries can work together to 

conserve biological diversity. By virtue of its near universal ratification, it codifies approaches and 

principles that guide current biodiversity conservation programs around the world, and it is arguably the 

most important international agreement for biodiversity conservation. As of 2004, 188 countries were 

parties to the Convention. Although a signatory, the United States is one of a few countries that have not 

ratified the Convention. 

The CBD seeks to promote the conservation of biodiversity, encourage the sustainable use of its 

components, and achieve the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources. 

These objectives are to be implemented through a comprehensive approach that includes ecosystems, 

species, and genetic resources. The convention promotes partnerships among nations through scientific and 

technical cooperation, access to financial resources, and the transfer of environmentally sound technology. 

SPECIFIC OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES TO THE CBD 

•	 Development of national strategies, plans, or programs for the conservation and sustainable use of 

biological diversity; 

•	 Integration of the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity into the relevant sectoral 

and cross-sectoral plans, programs, and policies; 

•	 Identification of components of biological diversity important for conservation and sustainable use; 

•	 Identification of processes and activities that have, or are likely to have, significant adverse impacts 

on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity; 

•	 Establishment of a system of protected areas to conserve biological diversity; and 

•	 Establishment of mechanisms to respect, preserve, and maintain the knowledge, innovations, and 

practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant to the 

conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. 

SOME KEY POINTS ABOUT THE CBD 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 157 

•	 Almost every USAID-presence country is a party to the CBD, so USAID staff can use the CBD and 

the guidance from its Conference of Parties (COP) to encourage conservation action in the country in 

which they serve. 

•	 The Global Environment Facility, to which the United States contributes, is the interim financing 

mechanism to implement the CBD. 

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is a legally binding protocol (entered into force in 2003) within the 

CBD that addresses potential environmental impacts of living modified organisms (LMOs) derived from 

biotechnology that cross international borders. It requires parties to abide by specific procedures for 

advanced informed agreement to shipment of biotech products destined for release into the environment, 

such as biotech-derived seeds. There are other, less stringent provisions related to food, animal feed, and 

fiber for processing. 

•	 CBD Web site: http://www.biodiv.org. 

•	 World Resources Institute summary and links: 

http://pubs.wri.org/pubs content text.cfm?ContentID=2129. 
CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES OF 

WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (CITES) 

CITES entered into force in 1975. As of 2004, 166 countries were parties to CITES. The fundamental 

goal of this treaty is to protect endangered species from overexploitation due to international trade. 

CITES requires governments to regulate the international trade in endangered species on the basis of a 

system of permits, corresponding to varying degrees of protection that depend on the biological status of 

the species. More than 33,000 species of animals and plants are accorded varying degrees of protection. 

The treaty calls for species to be listed on one of three appendices. Appendix I lists species threatened 

with extinction, and international commercial trade in these species is banned by CITES. Approximately 

900 species have been placed in Appendix I, and trade is tightly controlled and generally limited to 

scientific purposes. Appendix II lists species that are vulnerable if trade is not sufficiently controlled. 

Appendix III lists species that are not currently threatened by trade but that require international 

cooperation for adequate trade regulation within individual countries that are parties to the treaty. The 

approximately 32,000 species listed on Appendices II and III may be traded under certain conditions. 

SPECIFIC OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES TO CITES 

•	 Designate management and scientific authorities to carry out certain functions specified in the treaty. 

•	 Prohibit trade in violation of the Convention. 

•	 Penalize trade in violation of the Convention. 

•	 Confiscate specimens illegally traded or possessed. 

Countries continue to put in place institutional, legal, regulatory, and scientific structures to implement 

CITES. Awareness of CITES is still limited at the subnational or local level in many of the countries 

where species listed by CITES occur and where illegal trade may originate. 

SOME KEY POINTS ABOUT CITES 

•	 USAID may not implement any activity or program that violates CITES. 

•	 USAID should ensure that factors associated with biological and ecological sustainability are 

incorporated into activities that use wild fauna or flora. 

•	 USAID staff should determine whether the host country has signed and ratified CITES, and to what 

degree they are effectively implementing the Convention. 

•	 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has lead responsibility for CITES implementation and 

enforcement within the U.S. government, including interagency coordination on all CITES matters. 

CITES Web site: http://www.cites.org/. 

158 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE 

(UNFCCC) 

The UNFCCC provides a legal and institutional framework for international action to address climate 

change that may be caused by greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. It was adopted at the UN 

in New York City on 9 May, 1992 and opened for signature at the UN Conference on Environment and 

Development in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. The Treaty entered into force on 21 March, 1994. The 

United States was the first industrialized nation to ratify the UNFCCC, which, as of May 2004, includes 

189 nations. 

SPECIFIC OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES TO THE UNFCCC 

The Convention sets an “ultimate objective” of stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse 

gases at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such 

levels, which the Convention does not quantify, should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to 

allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened, 

and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner. To achieve this objective, all 

countries have a general commitment to address climate change, adapt to its effects, and report on the 

action they are taking to implement the Convention. The Convention divides countries into two groups: 

those listed in its Annex 1 (industrialized nations) and nonindustrialized, or developing, countries (socalled “non-Annex 1 Parties”). 

In order to strengthen the international response to climate change, The Kyoto Protocol to the Convention 

was adopted in Kyoto, Japan in 1997. The Kyoto Protocol establishes legally binding commitments for 

Annex I countries to reduce collective emissions by at least 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2008–2012. In 

addition to meeting emission reductions domestically, the Protocol allows countries to meet their targets 

in cooperation with other countries, through a variety of market-based mechanisms, including: 

•	 Joint Implementation: Allows credits for emission reduction projects in other industrialized countries 

(such as economies in transition); 

•	 International Emissions Trading: Would allow countries with explicit emissions reduction targets to 

trade greenhouse gas allowances among themselves; and 

•	 The Clean Development Mechanism: Would allow credits for emission reduction projects in 

developing countries. 

As of February 2005, 141 countries had ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and it entered into force. The U.S. 

has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol. 

SOME KEY POINTS ABOUT THE UNFCCC 

•	 The Framework Convention also established a process for future negotiations, known as Conferences 

of the Parties (COPs), which have been held annually since 1995. 

•	 Globally, deforestation and other forms of land use change account for approximately 20 percent of 

total greenhouse gas emissions annually. For this reason, forest protection and restoration play a 

significant role in climate change mitigation. In addition, because forests regulate hydrologic systems, 

anchor soil, and prevent erosion, they can help in the adaptation to changing climatic conditions, 

where increased flooding from shifting precipitation patterns is expected. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 159 
• The UNFCCC recognizes the importance of forests and agriculture in Article 4.1, where it calls on Parties
 

to promote conservation and enhancement of sinks and carbon reservoirs and to cooperate in preparing
 

for adaptation to the impacts of climate change through protection and rehabilitation of natural areas.
 

CLIMATE CHANGE WEB SITES 

•	 Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming 

•	 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: www.ipcc.ch 

•	 United Nations Development Program: http://www.undp.org/energyandenvironment/ 

•	 United Nations Environment Program: http://www.unep.org/themes/climatechange/ 

•	 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: http://unfccc.int/ 

•	 U.S. Department of Agriculture: http://www.usda.gov/oce/gcpo/index.htm 

•	 U.S. Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 

http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html 

•	 U.S. Department of Energy: http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do?BT CODE=ST SS4 

•	 U.S. Department of State: http://www.state.gov/g/oes/climate/ 

•	 U.S. Department of Transportation: http://climate.volpe.dot.gov/ 

•	 USAID: http://www.usaid.gov 

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION TO COMBAT DESERTIFICATION 

(UNCCD) 

Desertification is a global issue, affecting food security and poverty alleviation efforts in many parts of 

the world. Unsustainable agriculture, deforestation, and changes to settlement patterns can cause soil 

erosion, compaction, and salinization, resulting in the loss of productivity. The central emphasis of the 

UNCCD, to which the United States became a party in 2000, is the development of national and 

subregional action programs by national governments in cooperation with donors, local populations, and 

NGOs. The UNCCD uses an innovative “bottom-up” approach, involving those people affected by 

desertification in decision making, to facilitate effective implementation of the Convention. The UNCCD 

has the potential to address needs of indigenous and small farmers and landholders throughout the 

developing world and to coordinate their efforts on a subregional, regional, and international level. 

Every two to three years, under the UNCCD: 

•	 Developing country parties must report on progress in implementing their national action plans to 

combat desertification (if they are affected by serious drought and/or desertification); 

•	 Developed country parties affected by drought and/or desertification must periodically report on their 

activities to combat desertification; and 

•	 Donor countries must report on their activities to support the Convention and efforts to combat 

desertification. 

160 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
SOME KEY POINTS ABOUT THE UNCCD 

•	 The treaty is targeted at halting and reversing the effects of desertification and severe drought in arid, 

semi-arid, and dry subhumid areas—it does not target true deserts. 

•	 The UNCCD is the only multilateral environmental convention that legally mandates a participatory 

process in implementation, and this mandate will facilitate USAID collaboration with NGOs and 

community groups. 

•	 USAID has a long history of supporting activities to combat desertification, particularly in Africa, 

including CBNRM for both agricultural and wildlife objectives, food security initiatives, improved 

farming methods, and famine early warning systems (FEWS). 

UNCCD Web sites: 

http://www.unccd.int/main.php, 
 

http://www.iisd.ca/process/forest desertification land-ccdintro.htm, and
 

http://www.undp.org/drylands/. 
 

RAMSAR CONVENTION ON WETLANDS 

The Convention on Wetlands, signed in Ramsar, Iran in 1971, provides the framework for national action 

and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources. The 

purpose of the Convention is to stem progressive encroachment and loss of wetlands, and to conserve 

these valuable ecosystems by recognizing their fundamental ecological functions and their economic, 

cultural, scientific, and recreational values. Currently, 144 countries are parties to the Ramsar Convention. 

The United States ratified this treaty in 1976. Treaty membership is open for signature indefinitely, and 

the Convention urges all countries to join the agreement if they have not already done so. 

SPECIFIC OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES TO THE RAMSAR CONVENTION 

•	 Designate at least one national wetland for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance. 

•	 Accept the responsibility for conservation, management, and wise use of wetlands and their resources 

•	 Promote the wise use of wetlands through land use planning and the establishment of natural reserves, 

cooperate in the exchange of information, and train personnel for wetlands management. 

The treaty currently lists 1,421 wetland sites, totaling 124 million hectares, identified as Ramsar Wetlands 

of International Importance. Twenty-one of these are in the United States. 

SOME KEY POINTS ABOUT THE RAMSAR CONVENTION 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 161 

•	 It provides a forum for information exchange among countries. 

•	 It maintains a focus on conservation through sustainable use. 

•	 Private and public lands can be designated Ramsar sites, providing a mechanism for public-private 

cooperation. 

•	 It may provide links to other conventions or USAID activities, such as the CBD, International Coral 

Reef Initiative, Convention on Migratory Species, and Tropical Forestry Conservation Act. 

Ramsar Convention Web site: http://www.ramsar.org. 

Convention on Migratory Species: http://www.cms.int/. 
THE CONVENTION ON PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS (POPS) 

The POPs Convention defines control measures that cover the production, import, export, disposal, and 

use of POPs—chemicals that do not break down easily once they enter the ecosystem. These chemicals 

tend to accumulate and become concentrated through ecological food chains, posing serious threats to the 

environment and human health. POPs have been linked to cancer, allergies, nervous system damage, 

immune disorders, and birth defects. POPs have been found in areas of the world where they were never 

manufactured or used, underscoring their threat to the global environment. 

Most of the chemicals initially implicated by the POPs Convention are pesticides, the remainder are 

industrial chemicals or by-products. The list includes aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, dioxins, endrin, 

furans, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, mirex, polychlorinated biphenyls, and toxaphene. Once the 

Convention goes into force, eight of these chemicals may no longer be produced or used. Exceptions have 

been granted for DDT, PCBs, dioxins, and furans. 

SPECIFIC OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES TO THE POPS CONVENTION 

•	 Promote the “best available technologies and practices” for replacing existing POPs. 

•	 Control POPs on the initial list of 12 such chemicals, most of which are subject to an immediate ban. 

(The treaty allows a health-related exemption for DDT, however, because of its use in controlling 

malarial mosquitoes, until such time as cost-effective and environmentally acceptable alternatives can 

be developed.) 

SOME KEY POINTS ABOUT THE POPS 

•	 The United States signed the Convention on POPs in May 2001. 

•	 The FAO estimates that there may be as much as 500,000 tons of obsolete pesticide stockpiles 

worldwide. Examples of stockpiles of obsolete pesticides in storage in Africa include: 

−	 Ethiopia (2,400 tons), 

−	 Morocco (2,265 tons), 

−	 Tunisia (882 tons), 

−	 Sudan (657 tons), 

−	 Eritrea (223 tons), and 

−	 Central Africa Republic (238 tons). 

•	 There is an acknowledgement of the importance to the Convention’s success of having the developed 

countries provide “timely and appropriate” assistance to the developing countries and countries with 

economies in transition. Thus, capacity-building assistance will be focused on the needs of the 

recipient countries. 

Convention on POPs Web sites: 

http://www.pops.int/, 

http://worldwildlife.org/toxics/basic.cfm, and 

http://www.ciel.org/POPs/programpops.html. 

162 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
28.0 U.S. LEGISLATION 
 

THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT (FAA) 

The FAA mandates that U.S. foreign aid shall not be used in ways that damage the environment, either 

globally or locally, or that deplete the natural resources base necessary for sustainable development. 

Section 117 indicates that 

“Special efforts shall be made to maintain, and where possible, restore the land, 

vegetation, water, wildlife, and other resources upon which depend economic growth and 

human well-being, especially of the poor.” 

Section 118 requires that every country development strategy or country plan prepared by USAID include 

an analysis of: 

“The actions necessary in
 

that country to achieve
 

conservation and
 

sustainable management of
 

tropical forests. The extent
 

to which the actions
 

proposed for support by
 

the Agency meet the needs
 

thus identified.”
 

Section 119 dictates that every 

country strategic plan developed 

by USAID shall include: 

“The actions necessary in
 

that country to conserve
 

biological diversity, and 
 

The extent to which the
 

actions proposed for
 

support by that Agency
 

meet the needs thus
 

identified.”
 

FAA Sections 118 and 119 are also 

subject to annual reporting 

requirements according to FAA 

Section 634(a). Both Sections 118 

and 119 specify that USAID work 

with NGOs whenever feasible. 

Section 119 also provides guidance 

regarding consultation with local 

people and organizations. Ecotourism guides holding Malagasy boa, Madagascar. 

BRUCE BYERS, ARD, INC. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 163 
Compliance with FAA Sections 118 and 119 can be assessed using a variety of mechanisms (see Chapter 

26, Implementing Mechanisms and Partners). Information on which to base these assessments may be 

plentiful or sketchy in quantity and quality. Some countries may have a great deal of information 

contained within their ministries, universities, and NGOs. A country’s national reports and action plans 

under the CBD outline the country’s priorities in terms of biodiversity conservation and action plans for 

the UNCCD as well as national poverty alleviation plans to determine concerns for land degradation and 

human needs. 

Information from reviews carried out to satisfy Sections 118 and 119 may be useful background for 

choosing conservation priorities and targets (see Chapter 6, Choosing Conservation Priorities) and 

selecting the scale and sites at which to work (See Chapter 3, Issues of Scale). They can also help to 

identify threats (see Chapter 7, Designing Activities), stakeholders, and potential partners (see Chapter 4, 

Involving Stakeholders). Because of their potential usefulness—both in planning biodiversity 

conservation activities and activities related to agriculture, democracy and governance, and conflict— 

analyses of Sections 118 and 119 should be conducted at an early stage in the strategic planning process 

for USAID programs. Environmental officers should plan ahead and push for the early start of these 

reviews. 

The FAA also provides USAID with the authority to supply funding for biodiversity conservation. 

Congress authorized the use of FAA appropriations for assistance to countries for “protecting and 

maintaining wildlife habitats and ... developing sound wildlife management and plant conservation 

programs.” In providing such assistance, the legislation directs USAID to make special efforts to: 

• Establish and maintain wildlife sanctuaries, reserves, and parks. 

• Enact and enforce anti-poaching measures. 

• Identify, study, and catalog animal and plant species, especially in tropical environments. 

Although not required, given the interrelated character of environmental issues, it can save time and be 

more efficient to include all aspects of environment (e.g., energy and urban issues) when undertaking the 

mandatory biodiversity and tropical forestry work. (See 201.3.6.3 paragraph b, Environmental Review of 

the Automated Directives System [ADS]). 

164 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
29.0 USAID REGULATIONS, 

POLICIES, AND 

PROCEDURES 

In addition to compliance with relevant international treaties and with the FAA, USAID is legally 

required to comply with several key environmental statues and regulations to ensure that its programs and 

projects are environmentally sound. In this section, we do not provide the information necessary to 

address compliance with these regulations. Rather, we briefly describe some of the regulations of special 

importance to biodiversity conservation activities and programs. 

If you are working on compliance with any of the regulations, refer directly to the ADS 200 series and 

consult with your mission or bureau environmental officer. USAID has included specific language in the 

ADS 200 chapters, which identifies the objectives, authorities, and responsibilities of all Agency 

personnel and describes all aspects of the planning and reviewing process for environmental compliance. 

Chapter 204 maps out the policies, procedures, and staff roles and responsibilities. Chapters 201, 202, and 

203 lay out the ways environment is integrated into the planning, achieving, and evaluating dimensions of 

USAID programming. 

Under 22 CFR 216, the Agency is required to conduct rigorous and comprehensive environmental 

reviews for all programs, projects, and activities, and substantive amendments to existing programs. In 

addition, Sections 118 and 119 of the FAA require USAID to conduct environmental reviews on tropical 

forest cover or species loss. 

REGULATION 216 

USAID’s environmental procedures are embodied in 22 CFR 216—commonly referred to as “Reg. 216,” 

which has three basic goals: 

•	 To ensure that environmental factors and values are integrated into the USAID decision-making 

process; 

•	 To assign responsibility within the Agency for assessing the environmental effects of USAID’s 

actions by the Agency since 1979; and 

•	 To implement the requirements of the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as they affect 

USAID programs. 

Today, Reg. 216 is regarded as USAID’s principal directive for designing development activities that are 

environmentally sustainable. All USAID-funded or -managed activities must be reviewed for their 

environmental impacts through an initial environmental examination (IEE) (see the ADS for rare 

exceptions to this). This provision includes all new activities and substantial amendments to ongoing 

activities, such as extensions in time, increases in funding, or modifications to activities. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 165 
The IEE provides a brief statement of factual basis for a yes-or-no, “threshold” decision about whether an 

environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be required. A positive 

threshold decision means an EA or an EIS is required. A negative threshold decision means that further 

analysis is not required. A negative declaration, means that even though an action may have significant 

effects on the environment, the following apply: 

•	 A substantial number of EAs or EISs relating to similar activities have been prepared in the past. 

•	 The Agency has previously prepared a programmatic statement or assessment covering the activity in 

question and has considered the development of such activity. 

•	 The Agency has developed design criteria for such an activity, which, if applied in the design of the 

activity in question, will avoid a significant negative impact on the environment. 

A number of biodiversity conservation activities could have impacts that would warrant EAs or EISs—for 

example, the introduction of nonnative species as an alternative food source. If a native fish species is 

endangered because of overfishing, introducing an alien, quick-growing species of fish to provide an 

alternative food source might be proposed. However, an IEE would likely require an EIS, because of the 

potential for the introduced species to become an invasive that would threaten native biodiversity. 

When planning activities that involve agriculture, mariculture, aquaculture, apiculture, hunting, or 

harvesting—along with policy and infrastructure improvement—it is important to think of all possible 

ramifications and consider “how this activity might this backfire and ultimately be more destructive?” 

This question should also be raised when reviewing annual work plans. Many potential adverse impacts 

may not be apparent or clear, and it may be useful to ask mission environmental officers, other USAID 

colleagues at missions, or the EGAT Bureau, to review planned activities, conduct IEEs, or review annual 

work plans. 

BIOSAFETY REVIEW 

Biosafety review is another mandatory, pre-obligation requirement that is considered to be a 

subcomponent of the environmental review. Biosafety deals with the risk or hazard of using genetically 

modified organisms in research; field trials; or agricultural, medical, industrial, or other technologies. 

Biosafety is a very sensitive issue requiring the highest levels of review and compliance. Although 

genetically modified organisms can be exceptionally valuable solutions to a developing country’s needs 

and problems, they also have the potential for severe environmental impacts. USAID program managers 

must ensure that they comply fully with Agency procedures and obtain all necessary clearances and 

approvals. The biosafety review cannot be waived or delegated to the field. From Reg. 216: 

“Biosafety. If an activity will potentially involve the use of genetically-modified 

organisms in research, field trials, or dissemination, the activity must be reviewed and 

approved for compliance with applicable U.S. requirements by the Agency Biosafety 

Officer in Washington prior to obligation of funds and prior to the transfer, testing, or 

release of biotechnology products into the environment. This review and approval is 

limited to the safety aspects of the proposed activity and may involve external peer 

review or demonstration of comparable safety oversight by other expert U.S. federal 

agencies. Therefore, adequate time should be budgeted for this approval process. This 

biosafety determination is separate from, and precedes and informs, the 22 CFR 216 

environmental impact assessment determination.” 

166 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
ABBREVIATIONS AND 

ACRONYMS 

AAAS American Association for the Advancement of Science 

ADS Automated Directives System 

AEEB Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States 

AHEAD Animal Health for the Environment and Development 

AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome 

ANE Asia and Near East Bureau (USAID) 

APS Annual Program Statement 

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations 

AWF African Wildlife Foundation 

BIOFOR Biodiversity and Sustainable Forestry Indefinite Quantity Contract 

BOLFOR Bolivia Sustainable Forest Management Project 

BSP Biodiversity Support Program 

CARPE Central African Regional Program for the Environment 

CBC Community-Based Conservation 

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity (United Nations) 

CBNRM Community-Based Natural Resources Management 

CBO Community-Based Organization 

CCA Community Conserved Area 

CCT Cooperativa Café Timor 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

 Conservation International 

CIDA Canadian International Development Agency 

CIEL Center for International Environmental Law 

CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research 

CIPTA Consejo Indigena del Pueblo Tacana 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 

CI

167 
CITES	 United Nations Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 

Flora and Fauna 

COICA	 Coordinating Body for the Indigenous Peoples Organizations of the Amazon Basin 

COP	 Conference of Parties 

CRM	 Coastal Resources Management 

DA Development Assistance 

DAW	 United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women 

DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (insecticide) 

EA	 Environmental Assessment 

EAPEI	 East Asia and Pacific Environmental Initiative 

EGAT	 Bureau of Economic Growth, Agriculture, and Trade 

EIA Environmental Impact Analysis 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA	 Environmental Protection Agency 

EPIQ	 Environmental Policy and Institutional Strengthening IQC 

ESF	 Economic Support Funds 

ESP	 Environment and Science Policy 

FAA 	 Foreign Assistance Act 

FAO	 Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N. 

FAST	 Finance Alliance for Sustainable Trade 

FEWS	 Famine Early Warning System 

FSA	 Freedom Support Act 

FWS	 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

FY Fiscal Year 

GDP	 Gross Domestic Product 

GEF	 Global Environment Facility 

GNP	 Gross National Product 

GreenCOM	 Environmental Education and Communication Project 

GTZ	 Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH (German society for technical 

cooperation) 

HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus 

IAA	 Interagency Agreements 

168 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
IADB Inter-American Development Bank 

ICDP Integrated Conservation and Development Program 

ICRT International Center for Responsible Tourism 

IEE Initial Environmental Examination 

IIED International Institute for Environment and Development 

IPG Interagency Planning Group on Environmental Funds 

IPR Intellectual Property Right 

IQC Indefinite Quantity Contract 

ISDR International Strategy for Disaster Reduction 

IUCN World Conservation Union (formerly the International Union for the Conservation 

of Nature and Natural Resources) 

IUFRO International Union of Forestry Research Organizations 

IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management 

LIFE Living in a Finite Environment Project 

LMO Living Modified Organisms 

MAB Man and the Biosphere Program 

MERGE Managing Ecosystems and Resources with Gender Emphasis Project 

MDG Millennium Development Goal 

MPA Marine Protected Area 

NAAEE North American Association for Environmental Education 

NCBA National Cooperative Business Association 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NGO Nongovernmental Organization 

NRM Natural Resources Management 

NTFP Non-Timber Forest Product 

ODI Overseas Development Institute 

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 

OTI Office of Transistion Initiatives 

PASA Participating Agency Service Agreement 

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

PES Payment for Environmental Services 

POP Persistent Organic Pollutant 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 169 
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper 

PVO Private Voluntary Organization 

RAISE Rural and Agricultural Incomes with a Sustainable Environment IQC 

RCSA Regional Center for Souther Africa 

REA Rapid Environmental Assessment 

RFA Request for Applications 

RFP Request For Proposals 

RSSA Resources Support Services Agreement 

SFM Sustainable Forest Management 

TBCA Transboundary Conservation Area 

TBPA Transboundary Protected Area 

TEK Traditional Ecological Knowledge 

TFCA Transfrontier Conservation Area 

TNC The Nature Conservancy 

TRAFFIC Joint wildlife monitoring program of WWF and IUCN 

TRIP Trade-Related Intellectual Property Right 

UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification 

UNEP United Nations Environment Program 

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 

USAID United States Agency for International Development 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

WCPA World Commission on Protected Areas 

WCS Wildlife Conservation Society 

WHO World Health Organization 

WRI World Resources Institute 

WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development 

WTO World Trade Organization 

WWF World Wildlife Fund (US) or Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF International) 

170 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
GLOSSARY
 

Adaptive management: emphasizes designing, implementing, and monitoring project activities in a way 

that helps people learn more about complex ecological and social systems, which in turn can help 

them make better choices and design more effective interventions later. According to the Biodiversity 

Support Program: “Adaptive management is fundamentally a framework to experimentally test 

assumptions, adapt project activities, and learn from project impacts.” 

Acquisition: involves buying or contracting for goods or services to achieve “results,” in most cases 

through contracts with for-profit, private-sector organizations. Through this mechanism, consulting 

firms implement much of USAID’s support for biodiversity conservation. 

Assistance mechanisms: include grants and cooperative agreements. These are mainly awarded to nonprofit partners. Although there are no payback requirements with grants, USAID may set conditions 

on the design and implementation of activities; require monitoring, evaluation, and other kinds of 

reporting; and generally require a financial “match” from the grantee. 

Biodiversity: short for biological diversity, it is the variety and variability of life, including the diversity 

of genes within species, the diversity of species, the diversity of communities and ecosystems, and the 

diversity of ecological processes. 

Charismatic species: attractive, appealing, cute, unique, or otherwise attention-getting species; if 

threatened or endangered may serve as “flagship” species. Examples include cheetah, lion, orangutan, 

gorilla, sea turtles, and whales. 

Community Conserved Area: areas of natural or semi-natural habitat that have been conserved by local 

communities for a variety of ecological and cultural reasons. They may or may not be legally 

recognized by national governments, designated for management and protection. Thousands of small 

sites are conserved as village forests and pastures, sacred groves, and restricted hunting or fishing 

areas by communities worldwide. 

Conservation concession: a relatively new mechanism that involves a conservation organization acting 

as a resource extraction company by bidding on a development concession and, if successful, 

choosing not to exercise its resource extraction rights. 

Conservation trust fund: used to provide more sustained, long-term funding of conservation, usually of 

three main types: endowments, in which the principal is invested and income generated by that 

investment is used to finance activities, preserving the principal itself as a permanent asset; sinking 

funds, in which the principal and any investment income over a set period of time—generally a 

relatively long time is used to finance activities; and revolving funds, in which new funding is 

received on a regular basis (such as from grants, taxes, user fees, etc.) to replenish, or even increase, 

the original principal. 

Cooperative agreement: an agreement between USAID and implementing partners, awarded to provide 

funds or other resources. This type of agreement dictates “substantial involvement” between the 

parties during the performance of the proposed activity. “Substantial involvement” is statutorily 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 171 
limited and does not allow the Agency to exercise a high level of control over the cooperating 

organization. 

Debt-for-nature swap: a third party (often an NGO or bilateral donor) will arrange to purchase a portion 

of a country’s public debt at a discount. The third party then “forgives” the debt in exchange for a 

negotiated level of investments in conservation on the part of the country’s government. 

Development alliance: an agreement between two or more parties to jointly define a development 

problem and jointly contribute to its solution. 

Ecoregion: an ecological region, which as defined by WWF is "a relatively large area of land or water 

that contains a geographically distinct assemblage of natural communities,” or ecosystems. 

Conservation at the ecoregional scale could involve, for example, creating a network of reserves 

representative of the ecosystems of the region. Or, conserving the genetic diversity found within a 

given species might require that populations of that species scattered at specific sites across an 

ecological region be maintained. 

Ecosystem: a dynamic system of interactions between all of the species inhabiting an area and the nonliving, physical environment. Ecosystems vary spatially and change with time, and no ecosystem is 

closed with respect to exchanges of organisms, matter, and energy. Priority areas or sites for 

conservation exist within ecosystems. 

Ecosystem management: is concerned with how to manage the complex interaction of ecological and 

social systems in order to provide sustainable values to societies, even when scientists and managers 

do not know enough to accurately predict the behavior of those systems. 

Ecosystem services: the services provided by ecosystems and ecological processes, including regulation 

of water flows and maintenance of water quality; the formation of soil, prevention of soil erosion, and 

nutrient cycling that maintains soil fertility; degradation of wastes and pollution; pest and pathogen 

control; pollination; and climate regulation through carbon storage and sequestration. 

Ecotourism: responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the wellbeing of local people. According to the Ecotourism Society ecotourism is: “Purposeful travel to 

natural areas to understand the culture and natural history of the environment, taking care not to alter 

the integrity of the ecosystem while producing economic opportunities that make the conservation of 

natural resources beneficial to local people.” 

Element of biodiversity: an aspect or component of biodiversity, such as an ecosystem, ecological 

community, species, genetic variation within a species, or ecological process. 

Endemic species: species found only in a relatively small geographic area and nowhere else, such as 

Galapagos finches. 

Environmental accounting: modifying a country’s national income accounting system, from which 

GDP and GNP are calculated, to incorporate the monetary value of natural resources and 

environmental services used and depleted. 

Environmental assessment (EA): an analysis to determine whether a proposed action will have a 

harmful effect on the environment; an environmental impact assessment. 

Environmental impact assessment (EIA): an analysis to determine whether a proposed action will have 

a harmful impact on the environment, often comparing the impact of this proposed action with that of 

other alternatives and options. 

172 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
Flagship species: species, usually charismatic ones, that can serve as a symbol of nature and 

conservation, and be used as a logo or otherwise in fundraising and education by conservation 

organizations, such as the panda, the flagship species used as WWF’s logo. 

Forest certification: programs to audit and certify to consumers that wood and other forest products are 

produced in forests managed in environmentally and socially responsible or sustainable ways. 

Genes: the smallest elements of biological diversity. They combine in unique patterns to form individuals 

and populations of each species. 

Grants: gifts of funds or other resources. 

Indicators: variables that are influenced by project interventions or management activities and that can 

be monitored to provide evidence of progress or success. 

Indicator species: species that are particularly sensitive to ecological changes, such as pollution or the 

loss of natural ecological disturbances such as fire, whose presence indicates the overall integrity, 

resilience, or “health” of a community, landscape, or ecosystem (e.g., some lichens). 

Indefinite quantity contract: a contracting mechanism for both short- and long-term technical assistance 

within a specific area of expertise (e.g., biodiversity and forestry, energy, environmental education), 

developed to be simpler and faster than normal contracts. 

Indigenous and traditional peoples: groups of people who have resided in a region for generations, and 

can be distinguished from the rest of the national community based on social, cultural, and economic 

conditions. Indigenous areas are those areas traditionally inhabited by these peoples. Indigenous and 

traditional peoples have unique cultures that may be closely integrated with the local natural 

environment. These communities typically have a strong stake in the natural resources around them 

due to their dependence on these resources to sustain their livelihoods and cultures. These groups are 

often marginalized. 

Initial environmental examination (IEE): a brief statement of factual basis for a threshold decision as 

to whether an EA or an EIS will be required. 

In situ conservation: conservation of biodiversity in place, in natural settings. 

Interagency agreement: an agreement with other U.S. government agencies to share staff, expertise, and 

collaborate on joint programs. 

Invasive species: a species, often introduced inadvertently or deliberately by human activities from 

another continent or ecosystem, which can crowd out native species and take over habitats, thereby 

threatening native biodiversity. 

Keystone species: a species that plays a major ecological role in determining the composition and 

structure of an ecological community; if a keystone species disappears, the whole community will 

change. The African elephant is one example of a keystone species. 

Loans: the temporary use of funds or resources with interest charges levied for their use. 

Marine protected area: an area of sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of 

biodiversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other 

effective means. MPAs range from small, locally managed and enforced fisheries or ecological 

reserves (no-take reserves) to larger national marine parks that are zoned for multiple use. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 173 
Nonmaterial values: the benefits other than direct material uses or ecosystem services that people derive 

from the natural world and its resources, including spiritual, esthetic, educational, recreational, 

historical, and scientific benefits. 

Participation: the involvement of stakeholders in planning, priority-setting, implementation, monitoring, 

and evaluation of activities and programs. 

Privatization: converting land or resources formerly under public or communal tenure into private 

property or private concession or lease. 

Private protected area: refers to an area that is managed for biodiversity conservation objectives; 

protected with or without formal government recognition; and owned or otherwise secured by 

individuals, communities, corporations or NGOs. Private conservation areas, like publicly protected 

areas, vary greatly in terms of management objectives, allowable activities, and level of protection. 

These may include formally declared private areas, lands subject to conservation easements, game 

ranches, mixed commercial operations based on sustainable use, and land trusts. 

Protected areas: areas managed to maintain certain elements of biodiversity and the values they provide. 

Rapid Environmental Assessment: provides relief workers and disaster-affected communities with a 

simple and straightforward analytical and decision-making framework to identify significant 

environmental issues in relation to the prime humanitarian objectives of saving lives and reducing 

damage. 

Site: relatively small and circumscribed areas of natural habitat, whether land or water, and/or the area in 

which a conservation project works, regardless of size. 

Social marketing: the application of models and techniques derived from commercial marketing and 

from behavioral psychology to promote new behaviors that have positive social values, such as 

biodiversity conservation. 

Social monitoring: monitoring of social (economic, cultural, demographic, political) variables, including 

the behaviors of individuals and groups toward the environment and the effects of conservation 

activities on people’s health and welfare. 

Species: an identifiable group of (potentially) interbreeding organisms that is able to produce viable 

offspring. 

Stakeholders: any person, group, or organization with an interest in the use and management of some 

aspect of biodiversity in a given place, or which affects or is affected by a particular conservation 

action, ranging from local users, to government agencies, NGOs, and the private sector, and including 

local, national, and international levels. 

Sustainable forest management: management regimes applied to forestland that maintain the productive 

and renewal capacities as well as the genetic, species and ecological diversity of forest ecosystems” 

according to the U.S. Forest Service. 

Sustainable use: the uses of the biological products and ecological services of ecosystems in a manner 

and at a rate that does not reduce the system’s ability to provide those products and services to future 

generations. 

Tenure: recognized rights and responsibilities (e.g., formal and legal authority) to use and manage an 

area of land or water and/or the biodiversity resources found there. 

174 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
Threats: [to biodiversity] processes and actions that may diminish biological diversity, including 

conversion of natural habitats, overexploitation of valuable species, introduction of invasive species, 

and environmental change, such as climate change, desertification and pollution. 

Threats-based approach: emphasizes the development of a logical plan for determining which threats 

will be addressed, and how. The plan must clearly identify the linkages between threats and proposed 

activities. 

Traditional ecological knowledge: the knowledge, practices, and beliefs that traditional cultures use to 

conceptualize and interact with their environments 

Transboundary conservation area: refers to cross-border collaboration to achieve biodiversity 

conservation and development goals. Transboundary conservation areas can include two or more 

contiguous protected areas across a national boundary; a cluster of protected areas separated by other 

land uses; a cluster of separated protected areas without intervening land; a transborder area including 

proposed protected areas; or a protected area on one side of the political boundary along with 

complimentary land use across the border. 

Umbrella species: a wide-ranging species whose conservation requires a large area of natural habitat in 

which many other species can survive; sometimes a keystone, charismatic, or “flagship” species, but 

not necessarily so. Examples include the elephant and tiger. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 175 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 

OVERVIEW OF USAID AND BIODIVERSITY 

Federal Assistance Act of 1961 as Amended (please see Sustainable Use—Forestry sections): 

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/environment/compliance/laws.html 

United Nations Millennium Goals: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ 

USAID’s Biodiversity Conservation work: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/environment/biodiversity/index.html 

THE STATE AND IMPORTANCE OF BIODIVERSITY 

African Wildlife Foundation. African Heartlands Program: http://www.awf.org/heartlands/
 

Balick, M.J., and P.A. Cox. 1996. Plants, People and Culture: The Science of Ethnobotany. Scientific American
 

Library, New York. 

Balakrishna, Pisupati and Emilie Warner. 2003. Biodiversity and The Millennium Development Goals, IUCN. 

Bamford, Bruner, Cooper, Costanza. 2002. Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature, Science, Vol.297. 

Chivian, Eric. 2002. Biodiversity: Its Importance to Human Health, Center for Health and the Global Environment. 

Conservation International. Biodiversity Hotspots: 

http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/hotspotsScience/ 

Costanza, R. et al. 1997. The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital, Nature, Vol. 387, Table 

2, p. 256: http://www.uvm.edu/giee/publications/Nature_Paper.pdf. 

Convention on Biological Diversity: 

http://www.amnh.org/science/biodiversity/extinction/Intro/OngoingProcess.html. 

Daily, GC, Ed. 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, Island Press, Washington, 

DC. 

De Leo, G.A., and S. Levin. 1997. The multifaceted aspects of ecosystem integrity. Conservation Ecology, 1: 3: 

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol1/iss1/art3/. 

FAOSTAT: Crop and pasture area. Available at: http://apps.fao.org/default.htm. 

Harrison, Paul and Fred Pearce. 2001. AAAS Atlas of Population and Environment, Victoria Dompka Markham, 

Ed. 215 pages. American Association for the Advancement of Science and the University of California 

Press: http://atlas.aaas.org/. 

Hawksworth, D.L. and M.T. Kalin-Arroyo. 1995. Magnitude and distribution of biodiversity. Heywood, V.H. & 

Watson, R.T. (Eds). 1995. Global Biodiversity Assessment. Cambridge University Press (for the United 

Nations Environment Program): Cambridge. pp. 107-191. 

Heywood, V.H. & R.T. Watson. Eds. 1995. Global Biodiversity Assessment. Cambridge University Press (for the 

United Nations Environment Program): Cambridge. 

Hoegh-Guldberg, O. 1999. Marine and Freshwater Research. Marine Freshwater Research. 50:839-866): 

http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/127/issue/144 htm. 

176 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
Hunter, Malcolm L. 2001. Fundamentals of Conservation Biology. Blackwell Publishing 

Mawdsley, N.M. and N.E. Stork. 1995. Species extinctions in insects: ecological and biogeographical 

considerations. Harrington, R. and N.E. Stork, Eds. Insects in a Changing Environment. Academic Press: 

London. pp. 322-369. 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis, 2005: 

http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/products.aspx 

Moffat, A.S. 1998. Global nitrogen overload problems grow critical. Science 279: 988-999. 

Myers, N. 1979. The Sinking Ark. Pergamon, Elsford, New York. 

National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution: 

http://www.amnh.org/science/biodiversity/extinction/Intro/OngoingProcess.html. 

Norton, B. 1988. Commodity, amenity, and morality: The limits of quantification of valuing biodiversity. Chapter 

22 in Biodiversity, Ed. E. O. Wilson. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

http://www.ciesin.org/docs/002-256b/002-256b html. 

Primack, Richard B. 2004. A Primer of Conservation Biology, Third Edition. Sinaur Associates, Inc.: Sunderland, 

Massachusetts. 

Oldfield, S.F., C. Lusty, and A. Mackinven. 1998. World List of Threatened Trees. World Conservation Press, 

Cambridge, UK: http://www.wcmc.org.uk/trees/index.html. 

Rosenthal, J. and F. Grifo. 1997. Biodiversity and Human Health. Island Press, Washington, DC. 

Shand, H. 1997. Human Nature: Agricultural Biodiversity and Farm-based Food Security. Rural Advancement 

Foundation International (RAFI). Extract: http://www fao.org/sd/EPdirect/EPre0039.htm. 

Smith, F.D.M., R. May, T.H. Pellew, and K.R. Walter. 1993. Estimating extinction rates. Nature 364, pp.494-496. 

State of the World, 2003. Worldwatch Institute. http://www.worldwatch.org/pubs/sow/2003/ 

The Nature Conservancy: http://www nature.org/wherewework/ 

Turner, B. L., II, William C. Clark, Robert W. Kates, John F. Richards, Jessica T. Mathews, and William B. Meyer. 

Eds. 1990. The Earth as transformed by human action: Global and regional changes in the biosphere over 

the past 300 years. Cambridge University Press with Clark University: Cambridge. 

Tuxill, John. 1999. Nature’s Cornucopia: Our Stake in Plant Diversity. Worldwatch Paper 148. 

United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). 1999. Global Environment Outlook 2, Earthscan: London. Available 

at: http://www.grida no/geo2000/. 

Vitousek, O.M., H.A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J.M. Melillo. 1997. Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. 

Science 277: 494-499: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/mbinford/geo2200/Vitousek1997 

HumanDominationofEarthEcosystem_Science.pdf. 

Wildlife Conservation Society. Living Landscapes: http://wcslivinglandscapes.com/where 

Wilson, E.O. 1992. The Diversity of Life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

World Conservation Union. Species Information Service. http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/sis/sischallenge.htm. 

World Conservation Union. 2000. Red List of Threatened Species. Available at http://www redlist.org. 

World Resources Institute. 1998. World Resources Report 1998-99: Environmental Change and Human Health. 

Oxford University Press: http://pubs.wri.org/pubs_description.cfm?PubID=2889. 

World Resources Institute. World Resources 2000-2001: People and ecosystems: The fraying web of life: 

http://marine.wri.org/pubs_description.cfm?PubID=3027. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 177 
World Wildlife Fund. Global 200 Ecoregions: http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions/g200.cfm 

ISSUES OF SCALE 

Abell, Robin, Michele Thieme, and Bernhard Lehner. n.d. Ecoregion Conservation for Freshwater Systems, With a 

Focus on Large Rivers. Conservation Science Program. World Wildlife Fund: 

http://www.lars2.org/unedited papers/unedited paper/Abell.pdf 

African Wildlife Foundation. 2004: African Heartland Program: http://www.awf.org/heartlands 

Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative. 1998. Guidance for Ecoregion-based Conservation: Principles, Essential Elements, 

and General Approach: http://www.carpathians.org/publications.htm 

Communication Partnership for Science and Sea (COMPASS). Ecosystem-Based Management (consensus statement 

on marine ecosystem-based management): http://compassonline.org/?q=EBM 

Convention on Biological Diversity. Decision VII/11, “Ecosystem Approach:” 

http://www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.aspx?m=COP-07&id=7748&lg=0 

Convention on Biological Diversity. 2004. The Ecosystem Approach: CBD Guidelines: 

http://www.biodiv.org/doc/publications/ea-text-en.pdf 

Groves, Craig et al. 2000. Designing a Geography of Hope: A Practitioner’s Handbook to Ecoregional Conservation 

Planning. The Nature Conservancy: http://www.conserveonline.org/2000/11/b/GOH2­

v1;internal&action=buildframes.action 

Low, Greg. July 2003. Landscape-Scale Conservation: A Practitioner’s Guide. The Nature Conservancy: 

http://www.conserveonline.org/2003/09/l/en/Landscape Practicitioners Handbook July03NEW.pdf 

The Nature Conservancy. 2004. How We Work: Conservation By Design: Our Approach: 

http://nature.org/aboutus/howwework/about/art5720.html 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS): http://ecosystems.fws.gov/ 

Wildlife Conservation Society. 2004. Living Landscapes Program Tools: 

http://wcslivinglandscapes.com/conservation 

World Conservation Union. 2004. Ecosystem Management: http://www.iucn.org/themes/cem 

World Conservation Union. 2000. Ecosystem Management—Lessons from Around the World: A Guide for 

Development and Conservation Practitioners: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/wetlands/ecosystemmanagement.html 

World Resources Institute. 2000. What Is An Ecosystem Approach? 

http://pubs.wri.org/pubs_content_text.cfm?ContentID=226 

World Wildlife Fund. 2002. Sharing Across Boundaries Issue 5: Ecoregion Conservation Plans: 

http://www.panda.org/downloads/ecoregions/sab5final.pdf 

World Wildlife Fund. July 2003. A Portfolio of Stories: Ecoregion Conservation: 

http://www.panda.org/downloads/ecoregions/portfolioofstories.pdf 

INVOLVING STAKEHOLDERS 

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., ed. 1997. Beyond Fences: Seeking Social Sustainability in Conservation. Gland, 

Switzerland: IUCN: http://www.iucn.org/themes/spg/Files/beyond fences/beyond fences.html 

Byers, Bruce. 2000. Understanding and Influencing Behaviors: A Guide. Biodiversity Support Program: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/bsp/behaviors eng/behaviorsguide eng.pdf 

Colchester, Marcus. 2001. Global Policies and Projects in Asia—Indigenous Peoples and Biodiversity Conservation, 

Biodiversity Support Program (USAID-funded consortium of World Wildlife Fund, The Nature 

178 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
Conservancy and World Resources Institute): 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/asia/marcus/marcus A.html 

Margoluis, R., C. Hochman, K. Brandon, and N. Salafsky. 2000. In Good Company—Effective Alliances for 

Conservation, Biodiversity Support Program: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/aam/good/Good_Co-00.pdf 

Pretty, J.N. Participatory Learning For Sustainable Agriculture. World Development, Vol. 23, No. 8, 1995, pp. 

1247-1260. 

Sahai, Suman. TRIPs and biodiversity: a gender perspective: 

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/resources/downloads/gdt_sahai.pdf 

USAID. Participatory Development: http://www.usaid.gov/about/part devel 

Weber, R., J. Butler, and P. Larson. 2000. Indigenous Peoples and Conservation Organizations—Experiences in 

Collaboration, Biodiversity Support Program: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/africa/indigenous_conservation/indigenous_conservation.pd 

f 

World Bank. Participation and Civic Engagement: 

http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/sdvext.nsf/66ParentDoc/ParticipationandCivicEngagement?Opendocu 

ment 

World Conservation Union. Gender and Environment: www.genderandenvironment.org 

World Wildlife Fund. 2000. Stakeholder Collaboration: Building Bridges for Conservation. 2000. Washington, DC: 

WWF-US: http://www.panda.org/downloads/ecoregions/collaboration.pdf 

World Wildlife Fund. 2001. Sharing Across Boundaries, Issue 2: Gender and Ecoregion Conservation: 

http://www.panda.org/downloads/ecoregions/sabgender.pdf 

ANALYZING CONSERVATION THREATS AND OPPORTUNITIES 

Margoluis, Richard, and Nick Salafsky. 2001. Is Our Project Succeeding? A Guide to Threat Reduction Assessment 

for Conservation: http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/aam/threat/tra.pdf 

The Nature Conservancy. 2004. How We Work: Conservation By Design: Our Approach: 

http://nature.org/aboutus/howwework/about/art5720.html 

World Wildlife Fund. Root Causes of Biodiversity Loss: 

http://www.panda.org/about wwf/what we do/policy/macro economics/root causes/index.cfm 

World Wildlife Fund. 2000. Macroeconomics for Sustainable Development Program Office: 

http://www.panda.org/resources/programmes/mpo/rootcauses/root pub.htm 

CHOOSING CONSERVATION PRIORITIES 

African Wildlife Foundation: http://www.awf.org/about 

BirdLife International: http://www.birdlife.net/ 

Convention on Biological Diversity: http://www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.asp 

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora: http://www.cites.org/ 

Conservation International: http://www.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/regions/priorityareas/hotspots.xml and 

http://www.cabs.conservation.org/xp/CABS/home 

Conservation Measures Partnership: http://www.conservationmeasures.org 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 179 
Ecological Society of America: http://www.esa.org/ecoservices 

Food and Agriculture Organization: http://www.fao.org/waicent/ois/press ne/presseng/h8f.htm 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/ 

The Nature Conservancy: http://nature.org/aboutus/howwework 

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Man and the Biosphere Program 

(MAB): http://www.unesco.org/mab/brfaq htm 

U.S. Geological Survey: http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/ 

Wildlife Conservation Society: http://wcs.org/12318 or http://wcs.org/12311 . 

World Conservation Union. Species Survival Commission: http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/aboutssc/whatisssc htm 

World Wildlife Fund: http://worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions.cfm 

World Wildlife Fund. Ecoregion Action Programs: A Guide for Practitioners: 

http://www.panda.org/downloads/ecoregions/guidebookpart1.pdf 

DESIGNING ACTIVITIES 

Bakarr, M.I. et al. 2001. Hunting and bushmeat utilization in the African rain forest in Advances in Applied 

Biodiversity Science 2: 

http://cabs.kms.conservation.org/wombat/application/document/summary.cfm?RecordID=8F15D22CDD5E-496E-9C61-55A7A3EC9507&ObjectID=4&IDList=8F15D22C-DD5E-496E-9C61­

55A7A3EC9507 

Bennett, E.L., and J. G. Robinson. 2000. Hunting of Wildlife in Tropical Forests: Implications for Biodiversity and 

Forest Peoples Environment Department Papers # 76, Biodiversity Series-Impact Studies 2, The World 

Bank, Washington DC: http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDS_IBank_Servlet?pcont=details&eid=000094946_0103100530377 

Bushmeat Crisis Task Force: http://www.bushmeat.org/ 

Bushmeat Crisis: Causes, Consequences, and Controls (CARPE Congo Basin Information Series #23): 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/africa/127/congo 23.htmlKristensen, Peter J., and 

Christopher J. Rader. 2001. The Strategic Management Approach: A Practical Planning for Development 

Managers: 

http://www.conservation.org/ImageCache/CIWEB/content/publications/books/smapart1_2epdf/v1/smapart 

1.pdf 

Kristensen, Peter J. and Christopher J. Rader. 2001. The Strategic Management Approach: A Practical Planning for 

Development Managers: 

http://www.conservation.org/ImageCache/CIWEB/content/publications/books/smapart1_2epdf/v1/smapart 

1.pdf 

Mainka, Sue and Mandar Trivedi Links between Biodiversity Conservation, Livelihoods and Food Security: The 

sustainable use of wild species for meat: http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/actionplans/wildmeat/wildmeateng/Wild-Meat-OP.pdf 

Margoluis, Richard, and Nick Salafsky. 2001. Is Our Project Succeeding?: A Guide to Threat Reduction Assessment 

for Conservation: http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/aam/threat/tra.pdf 

Overseas Development Institute, Wild Meat, Livelihoods Security, and Conservation in the Tropics: http://www.odibushmeat.org/ 

The Nature Conservancy. 2004. How We Work: Conservation By Design: Our Approach: 

http://nature.org/aboutus/howwework/about/art5720.html 

180 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
World Conservation Union/Food and Agriculture Organization/TRAFFIC workshop - Solutions Table, The 

Sustainable Use of Wild Species for Meat: http://www.iucn.org/info and news/press/solutions.pdf 

World Wildlife Fund. Root Causes of Biodiversity Loss: 

http://www.panda.org/about wwf/what we do/policy/macro economics/root causes/index.cfm 

MONITORING, EVALUATING, AND MANAGING ADAPTIVELY 

British Columbia Forest Service. An Introductory Guide to Adaptive Management. Forest Practices Branch, BC 

Forest Service, Vancouver, Province of British Columbia, Canada: 

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/amhome/INTROGD/Toc.htm 

Byers, Bruce. 2000. Understanding and Influencing Behaviors: A Guide. Biodiversity Support Program: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/bsp/behaviors_eng/behaviorsguide_eng.pdf 

Conservation Measures Partnership: http://conservationmeasures.org/CMP/ 

Foundations of Success: http://fosonline.org 

Red List Consortium. 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: http://www.redlist.org/ 

Margoluis, Richard, and Nick Salafsky. 1999. Adaptive Management – A Tool for Conservation Practitioners: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/aam/112/titlepage.htm 

Margoluis, Richard and Nick Salafsky. 1998. Measures of Success: Designing, Managing, and Monitoring 

Conservation and Development Projects. Washington, DC: Island Press: 

http://www.adjacentschools.net/development/meachap0.html 

FINANCING CONSERVATION 

Bayon, Ricardo. 2000. Financing Biodiversity Conservation. Technical Paper No. ENV-134. Washington, DC: 

IADB. 37 p: http://biodiversityeconomics.org/pdf/topics-122-01.pdf 

Biodiversity Economics Library. Financial Sustainability in Biodiversity Conservation Programs: 

http://www.biodiversityeconomics.org/finance/topics-24-00.htm 

Conservation Finance Alliance. 2002. Conservation Finance Guide: http://guide.conservationfinance.org/ 

Conservation International. Conservation Enterprises Program: 

http://www.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/programs/conservation_enterprises/cons_enterprise.xml 

GEF Secretariat, Monitoring and Evaluation Team. November 1998. Evaluation of Experience with Conservation 

Trust Funds. Washington, DC: Global Environment Facility. 87 p: 

http://gefweb.org/ResultsandImpact/Monitoring Evaluation/eval all.pdf 

Kaiser, Jurgen, and Alain Lambert, 1996. Debt Swaps for Sustainable Development—A Practical Guide for 

NGOs. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 70 p: http://www.biodiversityeconomics.org/finance/topics-42-00.htm 

McNeely, J.A. 1999. Achieving Financial Sustainability in Biodiversity Conservation Programs. Gland, 

Switzerland: IUCN: http://www.biodiversityeconomics.org/pdf/topics-25-01.pdf 

Mitkitin, Kathleen and D. Osgood. 1995. Issues and Options in the Design of GEF-Supported Trust Funds for 

Biodiversity Conservation. Biodiversity Series No. 011. Washington, DC: World Bank: http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2000/02/23/000178830_98101912355299/Rend 

ered/PDF/multi page.pdf 

Norris, Ruth, editor. 2000. The IPG Handbook on Environmental Funds: A Resource Book for the Design and 

Operation of Environmental Funds. New York: Pact Publications: 

http://www.undp.org/bpsp/global_links/IPG%20Handbook.pdf 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 181 
Reid, Walter V. et al. 1993. Biodiversity Prospecting: Using Genetic Resources for Sustainable Development. 

Washington, DC: World Resources Institute: http://biodiv.wri.org/pubs description.cfm?PubID=2953 

The Nature Conservancy. 2003. EcoEnterprises Fund: Investing in Conservation: 

http://www.ecoenterprisesfund.com/index.htm 

Tropical Forests Conservation Act. 2003. Fact Sheet, U.S. Dept. of State, Bureau of Oceans and International 

Environmental and Scientific Affairs: http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/fs/2003/22973.htm 

USAID. Center for Development Information and Evaluation. Bioprospecting and Biodiversity Conservation. 

Report: http://www.dec.org/pdf docs/pnaby200.pdf 

USAID. Enterprise for the Americas Initiative: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/environment/compliance/eai htm 

PROTECTED AREAS 

ASEAN Heritage Parks and Reserves: http://www.aseansec.org/6078 htm (Declaration), 

http://www.arcbc.org/arcbcweb/pdf/vol1no3/49-51_profiles.pdf (Description). 

Australian Indigenous Protected Areas Program: http://www.atns.net.au/biogs/A000447b.htm 

Baltic Sea Protected Areas: http://www.helcom.fi/Recommendations/en_GB/rec15_5/ 

Biodiversity Conservation Network: www.bcnet.org 

Biodiversity Support Program. What’s Your Role? A Guide for Training Officers in Protected Area Management: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/africa/whats your role/role toc.html 

Borrini-Feyerabend, G. ed. 1997. Beyond Fences: Seeking Social Sustainability in Conservation. IUCN, Gland 

(Switzerland): http://www.iucn.org/themes/spg/Files/beyond fences/beyond fences.html#contents 

Brazilian indigenous reserves: http://www.conservation.org/xp/frontlines/people/focus31-2.xml 

Brown, J.; Kothari, A. (eds). 2002. IUCN Local Communities and Protected Areas. World Conservation Union: 

http://www.iied.org/blg/researchthemes_index.html 

Cardiff University/World Conservation Union. Transboundary Conservation Areas: 

http://www.cf.ac.uk/cplan/sacl/cs-transboundary_cas.pdf 

Commonwealth of Australia. 2003. Benefits of Marine Protected Areas: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/pdfs/programme/cct/marine/mpasfisheriesaut.pdf 

Convention on Biological Diversity: http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/cross-cutting/protected/default.asp 

European Union’s Natura 2000: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/home.htm 

Global Transboundary Protected Areas Network: http://www.tbpa net/ 

Marine Protected Area Executive Order and resource site: http://mpa.gov/mpa_center/mpa_center.html 

Mesoamerican Biological Corridor: http://www.biomeso.net (Spanish), http://www.tbpa net/case 10 htm (English 

description). 

MPA News: http://depts.washington.edu/mpanews/ 

Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations. Marine Protected Areas and Marine Reserves: 

http://www.pcffa.org/MPA.htm 

Pew Oceans Commission report “Marine Reserves: A Tool for Ecosystem Management and Conservation: 

http://www.pewoceans.org/oceanfacts/2003/01/13/fact 31395.asp 

182 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
Pomeroy, Robert, John Parks and Lani Watson. IUCN. Program on Protected Areas. 2004. How is Your MPA 

Doing? A Guidebook of Natural and Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected Area Management 

Effectiveness: http://www.effectivempa.noaa.gov/guidebook/guidebook.html 

Rainforestinfo.org Web site: http://www rainforestinfo.org.au/good wood/comm fy.htm 

Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance: http://www ramsar.org/index_list.htm 

South Africa National Parks. Transfrontier Parks: http://www.sanparks.org/conservation/transfrontier/ 

The Nature Conservance. Transforming Coral Reef Conservation: 

http://nature.org/initiatives/marine/work/art12286.html 

United Nations List of Protected Areas: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/protected_areas/UN_list/index.htm 

United Nations Environment Program. World Conservation Monitoring Center: http://www.unep-wcmc.org 

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. Man and the Biosphere Program: 

http://www.unesco.org/mab/ and http://www.mabnetamericas.org/home2.html 

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. World Heritage Committee: 

http://www.unesco.org/whc/nwhc/pages/sites/s worldx htmUNESCO World Heritage Committee: 

www.unesco.org/whc/nwhc/pages/sites/s_worldx htm 

U.S. National Parks Service: http://www nature.nps.gov/protectingrestoring/index.htm 

van der Linde, Harry et al. 2001. Beyond Boundaries: Transboundary Natural Resource Management in SubSaharan Africa: http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/africa/144/Beyond BoundariesFrontmatter html 

Watkins, C.W., A.M. Barrett, R. Smith and J.R. Paine. 1996. Private Protected Areas: A Preliminary Study of 

Private Initiatives to Conserve Biodiversity in Selected African Countries. World Conservation Monitoring 

Center, London: 

ftp://ftp.wcmc.org.uk/products/wcmc.publications/reports/private_protected_areas/text.htm 

World Bank –Transboundary implementation of the ecosystem approach: http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDS_IBank_Servlet?pcont=details&eid=000094946_00101105374277 

World Commission on Protected Areas: http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/pubs/guidelines.htm 

World Conservation Union. Guidelines on Transboundary Protected Areas for Peace and Cooperation: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/pubs/pdfs/Transboundary guide.pdf 

World Conservation Union. Indigenous land and sacred groves: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/pdfs/workshops/sacredness.pdf 

World Conservation Union. Protected Areas fact sheet: http://www.iucn.org/news/pambrief.pdf. 

World Conservation Union pages on CCA and co management: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Wkg_grp/TILCEPA/community.htm and 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Wkg grp/TILCEPA/WPC/TILCEPA%20CCA%20mandate%20and%2 

0work06.03.03.doc 

World Conservation Union MPA page: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/pdfs/programme/cct/marine/mpasfisheriesaut.pdf 

World Conservation Union Transboundary Protected Areas Global Program: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/english/outputs/transboundary.htm 

World Parks Congress. 2003. A Global Network to Support the Development of Transboundary Conservation 

Initiatives. Recommendation 11: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/pdfs/outputs/recommendations/approved/english/pdf/r11.pdf 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 183 
World Parks Congress. 2003. Recommendation 17: Recognizing and Supporting a Diversity of Governance Types 

for Protected Areas: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/pdfs/outputs/recommendations/approved/english/html/r17 htm 

World Parks Congress Recommendation 26: Community Conserved Areas: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/pdfs/outputs/recommendations/approved/english/html/r26 htm 

World Parks Congress. 2003. Private protected areas: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/english/outputs/durban/eissues.htm#5 

World Resources Institute. Biodiversity and Protected Areas: 

http://pubs.wri.org/pubs_content_text.cfm?ContentID=541 

World Resources Institute. Tools for protecting marine biodiversity: 

http://pubs.wri.org/pubs_content_text.cfm?ContentID=810 

World Wildlife Fund. Paper abstracts from Beyond the Trees: An International Conference on the Design and 

Management of Forest Protected Areas: http://www.panda.org/downloads/forests/beyondthetrees.pdf 

World Wildlife Fund. Position paper on protected areas: 

http://www.panda.org/downloads/protectedareaspositionpaperwpc2003_svvl.pdf 

World Wildlife Fund. Conservation Science/Marine Science Program: http://worldwildlife.org/science/marine.cfm 

World Wildlife Fund and World Bank. 2002. Reporting Progress on Management Effectiveness in Protected AreasA simple site-level tracking tool: 

http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/essd/envext.nsf/80bydocname/reportingprogressinprotectedareamanagement 

effectivenesstrackingtooljuly2002/$file/patrackingtooljune2003.pdf 

COMMUNITY-BASED CONSERVATION 

Adhikari, Jay Ram. Community-Based Natural Resource Management in Nepal with Reference to Community 

Forestry: A Gender Perspective. A Journal of the Environment, Vol. 6, No. 7, 2001: 

http://www.cbnrm.net/pdf/adhikan_jr_001_communityforestry.pdf 

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Project on Traditional Ecological Knowledge: 

http://shr.aaas.org/tek/ 

Alcorn, Janis B. 2001. Good Governance, Indigenous Peoples, and Biodiversity Conservation: Recommendations 

for Enhancing Results across Sectors. Biodiversity Support Program: 

http://www.dec.org/pdf docs/PNACP318.pdfAmazon Alliance: www.amazonalliance.org. 

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., M.T. Farvar, J.C. Nguinguiri, and V.A. Ndangang. 2000. Co-management of Natural 

Resources: Organising, Negotiating and Learning-by-Doing. Heidelberg: GTZ and IUCN. Kaspa Verlag: 

http://nrm.massey.ac.nz/changelinks/cmnr.html 

Borrini-Feyerabend, G. ed. Beyond Fences: Seeking Social Sustainability in Conservation, Section 1.4 Options for 

Action: http://www.iucn.org/themes/spg/Files/beyond_fences/bf_section1_2.html 

Borrini-Feyerabend, G. ed. Beyond Fences: Seeking Social Sustainability in Conservation, Section 4.2, Indigenous 

Resource Management Systems: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/spg/Files/beyond fences/bf section4 1.html#4.2 

Brascoupé, Simon and Howard Mann. 2001. A community guide to protecting indigenous knowledge. Research and 

Analysis Directorate, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Ottawa: http://www.aincinac.gc.ca/pr/ra/ind/gui_e.pdf 

Byers, Bruce. 2000. Understanding and Influencing Behaviors: A Guide. Biodiversity Support Program: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/bsp/behaviors_eng/behaviorsguide_eng.pdf 

184 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
Canadian International Development Agency. Handbook of CIDA project planning and indigenous traditional 

knowledge: http://www.kivu.com/CIDA%20Handbook/cidahome.html 

Center for International Environmental Law. 2002. Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual 

Property Rights: Promoting Synergies for Sustainable Development: 

http://www.ciel.org/Publications/prights.pdf 

Coordinating Body for the Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations of the Amazon Basin (COICA): 

http://pubs.wri.org/pubs_content_text.cfm?ContentID=530 

Commonwealth of Australia. 2004. Working with Indigenous Knowledge in Natural Resource Management: 

Guidelines for Regional Bodies: http://www.deh.gov.au/indigenous/publications/guidelines.html 

Community-Based Natural Resource Management Network: http://www.cbnrm.net 

Corbett, Tony, Marcus Lane and Chris Clifford. or Achieving Indigenous Involvement in Management of Protected 

Areas: Lessons from Recent Australian Experience: 

http://www.nrsm.uq.edu.au/iucn/pages/chap/15/main15.htm 

Eldis. Collaborative Forest Management: Villagers & Government: The Case of Mgori Forest, Tanzania: 

http://www.eldis.org/static/DOC6424 htm 

Food and Agriculture Program. Forests, Trees and People Program: http://www.cof.orst.edu/org/istf/ftpp.htm 

Freeman, Milton M.R. The Nature and Utility of Traditional Ecological Knowledge: 

http://www.carc.org/pubs/v20no1/utility.htm 

Gender and Environment Web sites: http://www.generoyambiente.org/EN/secciones/subseccion_25_120 html 

Hansen, Stephen and Justin VanFleet. July 2003. Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property: A Handbook on 

Issues and Options for Traditional Knowledge Holders in Protecting their Intellectual Property and 

Maintaining Biological Diversity. AAAS: http://shr.aaas.org/tek/handbook. 

Joint Forest Management: http://www.teriin.org/jfm/jfm.htm 

McKay, Fergus. October 2002. Addressing Past Wrongs: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas: The Right to 

Restitution of Lands and Resources: http://forestpeoples.gn.apc.org/Briefings/ 

Indigenous%20Rights/ips restitution protected areas oct02 eng.htm 

Pandey, Deep Narayan. Traditional Knowledge Systems for Biodiversity Conservation: 

http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/t es/t es pande conserve htm 

Richards, Michael, Gil Yaron, and Jonathan Davies. Stakeholder Incentives in Participatory Forest Management: A 

Manual for Economic Analysis. CIFOR: 

http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/docs/_ref/publications/newsonline/33/stakeholder.htm 

Rojas, Mary Hill. 2000. Working with Community-Based Conservation with A Gender Focus A Guide. Managing 

Ecosystems and Resources with Gender Emphasis (MERGE) Project: 

http://www.latam.ufl.edu/publications/merge/Case3Eng.PDF 

Science and Development Network, Indigenous Knowledge Dossier: 

http://www.scidev.net/dossiers/index.cfm?fuseaction=dossierItem&Dossier=7&CFID=3050697&CFTOKE 

N=cba4b4cf8b9c7551-7A8B286D-B0D0-F03F-733F46FE0A93A531 

Terralingua and World Wildlife Fund. Indigenous and Traditional Peoples of the World and Ecoregion 

Conservation: http://www.terralingua.org/index.htm 

Traditional Ecological Knowledge Prior Art Database (TEK * PAD): http://ip.aaas.org/tekindex.nsf 

Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Marginalization, Appropriation and Continued Disillusion; A Speech by Leanne 

Simpson: http://www.snowchange.org/views/indigenous/leanne trad en.html 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 185 
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. Best Practices on Indigenous Knowledge: 

http://www.unesco.org/most/bpikpub.htm. 

White, Andy, Augusta Molnar, Arvind Khare. Who Owns, Who Conserves, and Why It Matters: http://www foresttrends.org/documents/publications/Who-Owns Who-Conserves Why-Matter.pdf 

World Bank. Recent experience in collaborative forest management: A review of key issues: 

http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/essd%5Cforestpole nsf/0/2A739220D0007B6C852567530060D924?OpenDocument 

World Bank. Indigenous Peoples page: 

http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/sdvext.nsf/63ByDocName/IndigenousPeoples. 

World Bank. Integrating indigenous knowledge in project planning and implementation: 

http://www.worldbank.org/afr/ik/guidelines/index.htm 

World Conservation Union. Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and Protected Areas: Guidelines, Principles and 

Case Studies: www.iucn.org/bookstore/indig-peop htm 

SUSTAINABLE USE 

Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable use of Biodiversity (of the Convention on Biological 

Diversity): http://www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.aspx?m=COP-07&id=7749&lg=0 

Agroforestry Net: http://www.agroforestry.net/ and Guides for Pacific Islands: 

http://www.agroforestry.net/afg/book.html 

Agroforestry Research Trust: http://www.agroforestry.co.uk/ 

Ashley, Caroline, Charlotte Boyd and Harold Goodwin. March 2000. Pro-Poor Tourism: Putting Poverty at the 

Heart of the Tourism Agenda in Natural Resource Perspectives. No. 51. ODI: 

http://www.odi.org.uk/nrp/51 html 

Belcher, Brian and K. Schreckenberg. 2003. Global network for forest science cooperation: NTFP 

Commercialization—A Reality Check: 

http://www.sfp forprod.vt.edu/discussion/documents/Commercialization as%20of%2016%20Sept%20200 

3.pdf 

Big Volcano Ecotourism Resource Center: http://www.bigvolcano.com.au/ercentre/ercpage htm 

Biodiversity Economics Library. Overview of forest management certification systems currently being used, 

proposed, and developed: http://www.biodiversityeconomics.org/business/topics-101-04 htm 

Biodiversity Support Program. Evaluating Linkages Between Business, the Environment, and Local Communities: 

http://www.bsponline.org/bsp/publications/bcn/analytical/analytical.pdf 

CARPE Information Series #10. Non-timber forest products: Economics and Conservation Potential: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/africa/127/congo 10.html 

Center for International Forestry Research. Non-Timber Forest Products: 

http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/Html/AR-98/Non-Timber.html. 

Center for International Forestry Research. Forests and non-forest timber products: 

http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/docs/ ref/aboutcifor/factsheet/ntfp.htm 

Conservation International Ecotourism Program: 

http://www.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/programs/ecotourism/ecotourism.xml 

Emerton, Lucy. 2001. Community-Based Incentives for Nature Conservation. IUCN: 

http://biodiversityeconomics.org/pdf/topics-29-01.pdf 

186 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
Falls Brook Center’s NTFP Pages: 

http://www.fallsbrookcentre.ca/webmain/programs/Forest/NTFP%20Web/ntfp main.htm 

Food and Agriculture Organization. Non-Wood Forest Products: 

http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/webview/fop/index.jsp?siteId=2301&sitetreeId=6366&langId=1&geoId= 

0 

Forest Stewardship Council: http://www foreststewardship.org 

Government of Australia, Sustainable Forest Management in Australia: 

http://www.deh.gov.au/commitments/wssd/publications/forests.html 

Hughes, R. and F. Flintan. 2001. Integrating Conservation and Development Experience: A Review and 

Bibliography of the ICDP Literature. London: International Institute for Environment and Development: 

http://www.ucc.ie/famine/GCD/ICDP_sec.pdf 

International Ecotourism Society: http://www.ecotourism.org 

International Union of Forestry Research Organizations (IUFRO), FAO, and CIFOR: 

http://iufro.boku.ac.at/iufro/taskforce/tfsfm/resolutions.htm 

Malawi Principles: 

http://www.oceansatlas.org/unatlas gifs/offsiteframe.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oceansatlas.com%2F 

world_fisheries_and_aquaculture%2Fhtml%2Fgovern%2Finstit%2Fintlagr%2Fmalawi.htm&ctn=13255&k 

ot=documents 

Mogelgaard, K. Helping People, Saving Biodiversity: An Overview of Integrated Approaches to Conservation and 

Development: 

http://64.224.182.238/resources/publications/HelpingPeopleSavingBiodiv/HelpingPeopleSavingBiodiv.pdf 

Non-Timber Forest Products: http://valhalla.unep-wcmc.org/forest/ntfp/ntfps.cfm?displang=eng 

Pro-Poor Tourism Partnership: http://www.propoortourism.org.uk/ 

Rainforest Alliance. Sustainable Botanicals Initiative: http://www rainforest-alliance.org/news/2002/news44.html 

Rainforest Alliance. Sustainable Tourist Program: http://www rainforest-alliance.org/programs/sv/index.html 

Rainforest Alliance. Annotated Collection of Guidelines, Standards, and Regulations for Trade in Non-Timber 

Forest Products (NTFPs) and Botanicals: http://www.rainforest­
 

alliance.org/programs/forestry/trees/activities/botanicals-non-timber-products html
 

The Mountain Institute. 2000. Community-Based Tourism for Conservation and Development: A Resource Kit: 

http://www.mountain.org/resources/docs/CBT-Kit-final-2003.pdf 

The Nature Conservancy. Global Marine Initiative: http://nature.org/initiatives/marine/ 

United Nations Environment Program/World Conservation Monitoring Center. What are NTFPs? 

http://www.ntfp.org/definition.html 

United Nations Environment Program.Tourism: http://www.uneptie.org/pc/tourism/home.htm. 

University of Rhode Island/Coastal Resources Center: http://www.crc.uri.edu/ 

USAID/EGAT/NRM: http://www.usaid.gov/our work/agriculture/landmanagement/index.html 

USAID/Philippines: http://www.oneocean.org 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Agroforestry Center: http://www.unl.edu/nac/ 

World Agroforestry Center: http://www.worldagroforestry.org/ 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 187 
World Bank Group’s information on ICDPs: 

http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/envext.nsf/48ByDocName/ToolsIntegratedConservationDevelopment 

Projects 

World Bank. ProFISH project on reforming fisheries governance: 

http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/ardext.nsf/11ByDocName/NewsEventsEventsGlobalWorkshoponSust 

ainableFisheries 

World Conservation Union. Sustainable Use Initiative homepage: http://iucn.org/themes/sustainableuse/ 

World Conservation Union. Biodiversity Economics Site: http://www.biodiversityeconomics.org 

World Conservation Union. Sustainable Use Specialist Group: http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/susg/ 

World Conservation Union. WCPA World Parks Congress, Tourism Components: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/english/outputs/tourism.htm 

World Tourism Organization: http://www.world-tourism.org 

World Wildlife Fund. CARPE Program: http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/africa/127/congo_10.html 

World Wildlife Fund Ocean Rescue Initiative: http://www.worldwildlife.org/oceans/index.cfm 

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION 

Booth, Elizabeth Mills. 1996. Starting with Behavior: A Participatory Process for Selecting Target Behaviors in 

Environmental Programs. Washington, DC: GreenCOM: 

http://www.greencom.org/greencom/papers.asp?page=17 

Byers, Bruce A. 1996. Understanding and Influencing Behaviors in Conservation and Natural Resources 

Management. Washington, DC: BSP: 

http://www.wwfus.org/bsp/publications/africa/understanding eng/understanding1.html 

Byers, Bruce. 2000. Understanding and Influencing Behaviors: A Guide. BSP: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/bsp/behaviors eng/behaviorsguide eng.pdf 

Conservation International. Global Awareness: http://www.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/programs/awareness 

Day, Brian A., and Martha C. Monroe, eds. 2000. Environmental Education & Communication for a Sustainable 

World: Handbook for International Practitioners. Washington, DC: Academy for Educational 

Development: http://www.greencom.org/greencom/books/eec handbook.asp 

Ecological Society of America. Communicating Ecosystem Services Project: http://www.esa.org/ecoservices/ 

GreenCOM. Strategic Participatory Communications: http://www.greencom.org/index.asp 

North American Association for Environmental Education. International Program: http://naaee.org/index.php 

National Association for Interpretation: http://www.interpnet.org 

188 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Education: http://www.epa.gov/epahome/programs.htm 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Educating for Conservation: http://www fws.gov/educon.html 

World Conservation Union. Commission on Education and Communication: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/cec/cec/home page.htm 

World Wildlife Fund: http://worldwildlife.org/windows/index.cfm 
POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND REFORM 

Alcorn, Janis B. 1997. Indigenous Resource Management Systems. In Beyond Fences: Seeking Social Sustainability 

in Conservation, G. Borrini-Feyerabend, Ed. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/spg/Files/beyond_fences/bf_section4_1.html#4.2 

Alcorn, Janis B. 2001. Indigenous Peoples and Biodiversity Governance: The Hundestad Recommendations for 

Donor Best Practices. Washington, DC: BSP: 

http://www.bsponline.org/bsp/publications/asia/hundested/hundested.html 

Environmental Management Accounting: http://www.emawebsite.org 

Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Accounting: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/acctg/resources.htm 

Hecht, Joy E. Apring 1999. Environmental Accounting: Where We Are Now, Where We Are Heading in Resources 

for the Future, Issue 135: http://www rff.org/rff/Documents/RFF-Resources-135-enviroaccount.pdf 

Murphree, M. 1997. Beyond Fences: Seeking Social Sustainability in Conservation (Section 4.14: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/spg/Files/beyond fences/bf section4 4.html#4.14 

Ostrom, Elinor. 1997. Local Institutions for Resource Management. In Beyond Fences: Seeking Social 

Sustainability in Conservation, G. Borrini-Feyerabend, Ed. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/spg/Files/beyond_fences/bf_section4_1.html#4.3 

Weber, Ron, John Butler, and Patty Larson. eds. 2000. Indigenous People and Conservation Organizations: 

Experiences in Collaboration. Washington, DC: BSP: 

http://www.bsponline.org/bsp/publications/africa/indigenous conservation/indigenous conservation.pdf. 

World Resources Institute. Project documents. Environmental Accountability in Africa: Decentralization: 

http://governance.wri.org/project background docs.cfm?ProjectID=44 

Wyckoff-Baird, Barbara, Andrea Kaus, Catherine Christen, and Margret Keck. 2001. Shifting the Power: 

Decentralization and Biodiversity Conservation. Washington, DC: BSP. 

http://www.bsponline.org/bsp/publications/aam/shifting/Shift_Power_00.pdf 

AGRICULTURE 

African Wildlife Foundation. Maasai Steppe Heartland: http://www.awf.org/heartlands/maasaisteppe/ 

Aquaculture Collaborative Research Support Program: http://pdacrsp.oregonstate.edu 

Bakarr, M.I. 2000. Linking Agriculture and Biodiversity Conservation—Review of USAID-Supported Efforts in 

Africa. Washington, DC: BSP: http://www.bsponline.org/bsp/publications/africa/181/index.html 

Bonkoungou, Edouard G., and Maryam Naimir-Fuller. Biodiversity in Drylands: Challenges and Opportunities for 

Conservation and Sustainable Use: http://www.undp.org/drylands/docs/cpapers/Biodiversity-in-theDrylands-Challenge-Paper.pdf 

Center for International Earth Science Information Network, Columbia University. Indigenous knowledge and 

agricultural systems: http://www.ciesin.org/TG/AG/iksys.html 

Ecoagriculture Partners. The Nairobi Declaration. 

http://www.ecoagriculturepartners.org/Meetings/Nairobi2004/nairobi dec.php 

Ellis, Julia. 2000. Agriculture and Biodiversity/Natural Resource Management Results of Sector Interviews in 

USAID. Washington, DC: BSP: http://www.bsponline.org/bsp/publications/africa/180/interview.htm 

GreenCOM. Ecoagriculture: http://www.greencom.org/greencom/pdf/hn-v7n1-eng.pdf 

International Center for Integrated Mountain Development. Rangeland Management in the Hindu Kush Himalayas: 

http://www.icimod.org.np/focus/rangelands/range_toc.htm 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 189 
Margoluis, R. et al. Maximum Yield?—Sustainable Agriculture as a Tool for Conservation. Washington, DC: BSP: 

http://worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/aam/maximum/titlepage.htm 

McNeely, Jeffrey and Sara Scherr. 2003. Ecoagriculture: Strategies to Feed the World and Save Wild Biodiversity. 

Future Harvest and IUCN, Island Press, Washington, DC. 

McNeely, Jeffrey and Sara Scherr. May 2001. Common Ground, Common Future: How Ecoagriculture Can Help 

Feed the World and Save Wild Biodiversity. IUCN. Gland, Report 5/01: 

http://www.futureharvest.org/pdf/biodiversity_report.pdf 

Network of Aquaculture Centers in Asia-Pacific: http://www.enaca.org/ 

Thrupp, Lori Ann. 1997. Linking Biodiversity and Agriculture: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Food 

Security. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute: 

http://pubs.wri.org/pubs_description.cfm?PubID=2633 

U.S Deparment of Agriculture. Economic Research Service, Aquaculture Briefing Document: 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Aquaculture/ 

Wilkie, David, S. 2001. Agriculture and Biodiversity Conservation Investments by USAID in Africa—Possible 

Cross-Sectoral Synergies and Perverse Impacts. Washington, DC: BSP: 

http://www.bsponline.org/bsp/publications/africa/182/titlepage htm 

World Alliance on Mobile Indigenous Peoples. Briefing Notes on Mobile Peoples and Conservation: 

http://www.cenesta.org/projects/Pastoralism/WAMIP%20Briefing%20Notes%20on%20Mobile%20People 

s%20and%20Conservation.pdf 

World Bank Global Workshop on Sustainable Fisheries. June 2004: 

http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/ardext.nsf/11ByDocName/NewsEventsEventsGlobalWorkshoponSust 

ainableFisheries 

World Conservation Union. Dana Declaration on Mobile Peoples and Conservation: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/dana.htmWorld Fish Center: http://www.worldfishcenter.org 

World Fish Center: http://www.worldfishcenter.org 

World Parks Congress Recommendation 27: Mobile Indigenous Peoples and Conservation: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/pdfs/outputs/recommendations/approved/english/html/r27 htm 

World Resources Institute. Linking Biodiversity and Agriculture: Agrobiodiversity as a basis for production and 

survival: http://pubs.wri.org/pubs_description.cfm?PubID=2633 

BIOTECHNOLOGY 

AgBios—a partner of USAID in biosafety development: http://www.agbios.com/main.php 

Biotechnology Union of Concerned Scientists: Food and Environment: 

http://www.ucsusa.org/food and environment/biotechnology/index.cfm 

Braun, Richard and Klaus Ammann. Biodiversity: The Impact of Biotechnology: 

http://www.botanischergarten.ch/EFB/UNESCO-Biodiv-Biotech-Final.pdf 

Ecological Society of America. http://www.esa.org/pao/esaPositions/Papers/geo_position.htm 

European Commission environmental research: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/quality-of-life/gmo 

International Council for Science. National Studies on Biotechnology: 

http://www.icsu.org/1 icsuinscience/GMO/html/national studies.htm 

The Royal Society (UK). Genetic modification of plants: http://www royalsoc.ac.uk/landing.asp?id=1216 

190 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
U.S. biotechnology regulations: http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/ 

CONFLICT 

ARD, Inc. May 2003. Conflict Timber: Dimensions of the Problem in Asia and Africa. USAID Office of Transition 

Initiatives and Asia and Near East Bureaus.
 

Volume I: http://www.usaid.gov/hum response/oti/pubs/vol1synth.pdf
 

Volume II: http://www.usaid.gov/hum_response/oti/pubs/vol2asia.pdf
 

Volume III: http://www.usaid.gov/hum response/oti/pubs/vol3afr.pdf
 

ARD, Inc., 2004. Managing Conflict in Asian Forest Communities: Growing Conflict and Unrest in Indonesian 

Forests. USAID OTI ANE/TS: http://www.ardbiofor.com/documents/Indonesia%20Summary%20Paper.pdf 

Biodiversity Support Program. Armed Conflict and the Environment Project list of publications: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/programs/africa/conflict.html 

Center for International Forestry Research. Forests and conflict page: 

http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/docs/_ref/aboutcifor/factsheet/forests_conflict.htm 

East Asia and Pacific Environmental Initiative. Conflict and Environment Links: 

http://eapei home.att.net/Links/conflictlinks.htm 

International Institute for Sustainable Development’s Conservation in Post-Conflict Settings: 

http://www.iisd.org/natres/security/cac.asp (see http://www.iisd.org/natres/security/publications.asp#cac for 

a list of relevant publications). 

USAID. Conflict Management Toolkits: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/crosscutting programs/conflict/publications/toolkits.html 

USAID. Land and Conflict: A Toolkit for Intervention: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/crosscutting programs/conflict/publications/docs/CMM Land and Conflict 2004.pdf 

USAID. Minerals and Conflict: A Toolkit for Intervention: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/crosscutting programs/conflict/publications/docs/CMM Minerals and Conflict 2004.pdf 

CONSERVATION ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT 

African Wildlife Foundation. Conservation Through Enterprise: http://www.awf.org/documents/enterprise.pdf 

Biodiversity Conservation Network. Bibliography for Conservation Enterprise: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/bcn/learning/biblio/bib.htm 

Biodiversity Conservation Network. 1999. Evaluating Linkages Between Business, the Environment, and Local 

Communities: Final Analytical Results from the Biodiversity Conservation Network: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/bcn/analytical/analytical.pdf 

Biodiversity Conservation Network. 1999. Evaluating Linkages Between Business, the Environment, and Local 

Communities—Final Stories from the Field: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/bcn/annual_report/bcn_report.pdf 

Biodiversity Conservation Network. 1999. Community-Based Conservation Enterprises in Melanesia—What Have 

We Learned? Principles Developed During a Practitioner Workshop: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/bcn/archives/wn9 htm 

Biodiversity Economics Library: Trade—Hot Topics: http://biodiversityeconomics.org/trade/trade-topics.htm 

Conservation International. Conservation Enterprise: http://www.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/programs/enterprises 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 191 
Conservation International Center for Environmental Leadership in Business: 

http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/programs/ 

Department for International Development. Participatory Value Chains Analysis: http://www.enterpriseimpact.org.uk/pdf/EINMay03.pdf 

Enterweb. Microfinance: http://www.enterweb.org/microcre.htm 

Enterweb. Donors Activities in Enterprise Development: http://www.enterweb.org/donors htm 

Pact. Conservation of Resources Through Enterprises: 

http://www.pactworld.org/programs/country/kenya/kenya core.htm 

Rainforest Alliance. Community Conservation Enterprises: http://www rainforest-alliance.org/programs/cce/ 

USAID. Microenterprise Development at USAID: http://www.usaidmicro.org/default.asp 

USAID. Nature, Wealth, and Power: Emerging Best Practice for Revitalizing Rural Africa: 

http://www.dec.org/pdf docs/pnacr288.pdf 

Wilderness Damaraland Camp: http://www.namibian.org/travel/lodging/private/damaraland.htm 

DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE 

ARD, Inc. May 2003. Conflict Timber: Dimensions of the Problem in Asia and Africa. USAID Office of Transition 

Initiatives and Asia and Near East Bureaus. Volume 1: 

http://www.usaid.gov/hum response/oti/pubs/vol1synth.pdf 

Biodiversity Support Program. Greening Democracy and Governing the Environment: USAID Experiences from the 

Field: http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/asia/greening/greening.html 

Biodiversity Support Program. Governance and Biodiversity—Weaving Resilience into the Web of Life: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/asia/kemala/kemala.html 

Global Forest Watch: http://www.globalforestwatch.org/english/index.htm 

Ribot, Jesse C. 2002. Democratic Decentralization of Natural Resources: Institutionalizing Popular Participation. 

World Resources Institute: http://pdf.wri.org/ddnr_full_revised.pdf 

Ribot, Jesse C. 2004. Waiting for Democracy: The Politics of Choice in Natural Resource Decentralization. World 

Resources Institute: http://pdf.wri.org/wait_for_democracy.pdf 

USAID. Democracy and Governance Web page: Promoting Democracy and Good Governance: 

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/ 

USAID/Indonesia. Strengthened and Decentralized Natural Resources Management, 497-012: 

http://www.usaid.gov/pubs/cbj2003/ane/id/497-012 html 

USAID. USAID Combats Illegal Logging: http://www.usaid.gov/locations/asia near east/features/id 081303.html 

USAID. March 2000. Democracy and Governance and Cross-Sectoral Linkages: Philippines: 

http://www.dec.org/pdf docs/PNACG604.pdf 

USAID. December 2001. Linking Democracy and Development: An Idea for the Times. USAID Evaluation 

Highlights No. 75: http://www.dec.org/pdf docs/PNACN179.pdf 

USAID. Nature, Wealth, and Power: Emerging Best Practice for Revitalizing Rural Africa: 

http://www.dec.org/pdf docs/pnacr288.pdf 

World Resources Institute. 2003. Assessing access to information, participation, and justice for the environment: A 

guide. The Access Initiative: http://governance.wri.org/pubs description.cfm?PubID=3814 

World Resources Institute. 2003-2004: Decisions for the Earth: Balance, voice, and power: 

http://governance.wri.org/pubs description.cfm?PubID=3764 

192 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
Wyckoff-Baird, Barbara, Andrea Kaus, Catherine Christen, and Margaret Keck. 2001. Shifting the Power: 

Decentralization and Biodiversity Conservation. Washington, DC: BSP: 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/aam/shifting/Shift_Power_00.pdf 

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 

Convention on Biological Diversity. Climate Change and Biodiversity: http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/crosscutting/climate/ 

Convention on Biological Diversity. Biodiversity and Climate Change Interlinkages: 

http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/cross-cutting/climate/interlinkages.asp 

German Federal Environmental Agency. Toolkit: Integration of Biodiversity Concerns in Climate Change 

Mitigation Activities: http://www.umweltdaten.de/medien-e/biodiv.pdf 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: http://www.ipcc.ch/ 

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Interlinkages Between Biodiversity and Climate Change: 

http://www.biodiv.org/doc/publications/cbd-ts-10.pdf 

Science Development Network. How biodiversity and climate change interact: 

http://www.scidev.net/dossiers/index.cfm?fuseaction=policybrief&dossier=11&policy=46 

The Nature Conservancy. Global Climate Change Initiative: http://nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/ 

USAID. Climate Change Program: http://www.usaid.gov/our work/environment/climate/index.html 

World Resources Institute. Climate, Biodiversity, and Forests: Issues and Opportunities Emerging from the Kyoto 

Protocol: http://forests.wri.org/pubs description.cfm?PubID=2956 

HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE AND DISASTER RESPONSE 

Aguilar, Lorena. 2004. Climate Change and Disaster Mitigation: Gender Makes the Difference: 

http://www.iucn.org/congress/women/Climate.pdf 

Kelly, Charles. 2003. Guidelines for Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment in Disasters. Benfield Hazard Research Center: http://www.forcedmigration.org/sphere/pdf/shelter/benfield-hazard/rea-guidelines-4-2.pdf 

Organization for Economic Coopercation and Development. 1994. Developmental Assistance Committee 

Guidelines on Aid and Environment. No. 7. Guidelines for Aid Agencies on Disaster Mitigation: 

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/37/7/1887740.pdf 

Pan American Health Organization. Gender and Natural Disasters. GenSalud Program: 

http://www.paho.org/English/DPM/GPP/GH/genderdisasters.pdf 

Shambaugh, James, Judy Oglethorpe, Rebecca Ham, and Sylvia Tognetti. 2001. The Trampled Grass: Mitigating the 

Impacts of Armed Conflict on the Environment, Biodiversity Support Program: 

http://www.dec.org/pdf docs/PNACN551.pdf 

UN Division for the Advancement of Women and the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. 2001. 

Environmental Management and the Mitigation of Natural Disasters: A Gender Perspective: 

http://www.generoyambiente.org/ES/act_secciones/archivos/615_3_01_01_report%20EGM%20Turkey%20f 

inal.doc 

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. 2003. An Operations Management Handbook for UNHCR’s 

Partners (see Chapter 3: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/publ 

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. October 2001. Practicing and Promoting Sound Environmental 

Management in Refugee/Returnee Operations: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/publ 

Wisner, Ben and Piers Blaikie, Terry Cannon and Ian Davis. 2003. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s 

Vulnerability, and Disasters, London, Routledge; ISBN 0 415 25216 4; 471 pp. 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 193 
World Bank Indicators: Environment. 2001: http://www.worldbank.org/data/wdi2001/pdfs/environment.pdf 

World Wildlife Fund: ‘Green Reconstruction’ Vital in the Aftermath of the Tsunami: 

http://worldwildlife.org/news/displayPR.cfm?prID=174 

HUMAN POPULATION AND HEALTH, INCLUDING HIV/AIDS 

Africa Biodiversity Collaborative Group. HIV/AIDS & Natural Resource Management Linkages. 

http://www.abcg.org/ 

AIDS Toolkits—HIV/AIDS and Community-Based Natural Resources Management. USAID Office of Sustainable 

Development, Africa Bureau. http://www.afr-sd.org/Environment/AIDS Toolkit-150 res.PDF 

AIDS Brief for Sectoral Planners and Managers—Community-Based Natural Resource Management. Development 

Alternatives, Inc. Washington, DC: USAID Office of Sustainable Development, Africa Bureau. 

http://www.afr-sd.org/Environment/AIDS Brief-all-150 res.pdf 

Chivian. E. (ed.) Biodiversity: Its Importance to Human Health. A Project of the Center for Health and the Global 

Environment, Harvard Medical School (under the auspices of the World Health Organization, the United 

Nations Development Program, and the United Nations Environment Program). 2003. 

http://www.med.harvard.edu/chge/Biodiversity v2 screen.pdf 

Environmental Health Project: www.ehproject.org 

Margoluis, R. et al. An Ounce of Prevention—Making the Link between Health and Conservation. Biodiversity 

Support Program (BSP), Washington, DC. 2001. 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/aam/ounce/Titlepage.htm 

Melnyk, Mary. An Ounce of Prevention Literature Review. Washington, DC: BSP. 2001. 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/ 

Nash, Jonathan. Healthy People Need Healthy Forests. Population Reference Bureau. 2001. 

http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Section=PRB&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&C 

ontentID=5772 

Wildlife Conservation Society. AHEAD Program: http://www.wcs.org/wcspubs/wcsreports/460166 

NONRENEWABLE EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRY: ENERGY AND MINING 

Efficient Energy for Sustainable Development: http://www.getf.org/cleanenergy/ 

Energy and Biodiversity Initiative: http://www.theebi.org/ 

Global Village Energy Partnership Online: http://www.gvep.org 

Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership: http://www reeep.org/ 

World Bank Environment, Health, and Safety Guidelines: Mining and Milling: http://www naturalresources.org/minerals/CD/twb htm#Guidelines and http://www.naturalresources.org/minerals/CD/energy.htm#General 

World Conservation Union. Mining and Biodiversity Conservation: Best Practices Dialogue: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/business/mining/index.htm 

World Conservation Union. Working Group on Extractives Industries and Biodiversity: 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/business/mining/WGEIB.htm 

World Resources Institute Project. The Electricity Governance Initiative: International Financial Flows and the 

Environment Project with the Access Initiative, Prayas-Pune and the National Institute of Public Finance 

and Policy. http://electricitygovernance.wri.org 

194 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 
URBAN ISSUES 

Global Development Research Center. Urban Environmental Management: http://www.gdrc.org/uem/ 

Man and Biosphere Urban Group: http://www.unesco.org/mab/urban/urbanhome.htm 

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. 2000. The Role of MAB with Regard to Urban 

and Peri-Urban Issues, International Coordinating Council of the MAB Program: 

http://www.unesco.org/mab/urban/Urban.PDF 

UN-HABITAT/United Nations Environment Program. The Sustainable Cities Program: 

http://www.unchs.org/programmes/sustainablecities/ 

USAID: Making Cities Work: http://www makingcitieswork.org/ and Cities Alliance: Cities Without Slums: 

http://www.citiesalliance.org 

WATERSHEDS AND WATER RESOURCES 

Global Water Partnership IWRM Toolbox: http://gwpforum.netmasters05 netmasters.nl/en/index.html
 

Environmental Protection Agency. Aquatic Biodiversity: http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators/aquatic/
 

International Development Research Center. Global Initiatives for Improved Management of Aquatic Biodiversity:
 

http://web.idrc.ca/en/ev-67649-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html 

Ramsar Convention on Wetlands: http://www ramsar.org/ 

Ramsar/Convention on Biological Diversity. River Basin Initiative: http://www ramsar.org/key_rbi_index.htm 

World Conservation Union. Water and Nature Initiative: http://www.waterandnature.org 

World Conservation Union. 2004. Flow: The Essentials of Environmental Flow: 

http://www.waterandnature.org/flow/main.html 

World Conservation Union. 2005. Value: Counting Ecosystems as Water Infrastructure: 

http://www.waterandnature.org/value/index.html 

IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMS AND PARTNERS 

Business Partners for Development. 2001. Focus Projects. Washington, DC: The World Bank, Business Partners for 

Development: www.bpdweb.org/projects htm 

Business Support Program. 2000. The Role of NGOs in Conservation: A Literature Review for In Good Company: 

Effective Alliances for Conservation. Washington, DC: Biodiversity Support Program: 

www.bsponline.org/bsp/publications/aam/ngo lit/ngo lit.html 

Center for Environmental Leadership at Conservation International: www.celb.org 

Conservation International. 2000. First Time Debt Swap for Ghana. Washington, DC: 

www.conservation.org/xp/news/press_releases/2000/060200.xml 

Conservation International. Protected Areas. 2001. Washington, DC, 2001. 

www.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/programs/TWPF/protected_areas.xml 

Creating Land Trusts, 2001. www.possibility.com/LandTrust/ 

Global Development Alliance program: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_partnerships/ 

Ingerson, Alice. 2000. Key Issues in Public-Private Partnerships for Cultural Landscapes. Cambridge, MA: Arnold 

Arboretum of Harvard University, Institute for Cultural Landscape Studies: 

www.icls harvard.edu/ppp/key.html 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 195 
Knowledge Resource Group. 2001. Business Partners for Development. Endearing Myths, Enduring Truths: 

Enabling Partnerships Between Business, Civil Society and the Public Sector. Washington, DC: The World 

Bank: www.bpdweb.org/myth_prev htm 

Land Trust Alliance: www.lta.org 

Margoluis, Richard et al. 2001. In Good Company: Effective Alliances for Conservation. Washington, DC: 

Biodiversity Support Program: www.bsponline.org/bsp/publications/aam/good/Good Co-00.pdf 

Secaira, Estuardo et al. 2001. Delegating Protected Area Management to an NGO: The Case of Guatemala’s Sierra 

de las Minas Biosphere Reserve. Washington, DC: Biodiversity Support Program: 

www.bsponline.org/bsp/publications/aam/guat/guatemala html 

The Nature Conservancy. 2001. Landmark Deal to Protect Rainforests in Belize. Arlington, VA: 

nature.org/press/press326.html 

The Trust for Public Land. 2001. 19,000 Acres Could be Protected (ME). San Francisco: 

www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=4601&folder_id=259 

USAID. 1999. Results-Oriented Assistance: A USAID Sourcebook—choosing results-oriented assistance 

instruments. Washington, DC: USAID:www.usaid.gov/pubs/sourcebook/usgov/choose.html 

USAID. 2001. ADS Series 300: Acquisition & Assistance. Washington, DC: www.usaid.gov/pubs/ads/300/ 

World Bank, Business Partners for Development: www.bpdweb.org 

Wyckoff-Baird, Barbara et al. 2001. Shifting the Power: Decentralization and Biodiversity Conservation. 

Washington, DC: Biodiversity Support Program: 

www.bsponline.org/bsp/publications/aam/shifting/Shift Power 00.pdf 

INTERNATIONAL TREATIES 

196 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 

CBD Website: http://www.biodiv.org
 

CITES Web site: http://www.cites.org/
 

Convention on Migratory Species: http://www.cms.int/
 

Convention on POPs Web sites: http://www.pops.int/, http://worldwildlife.org/toxics/basic.cfm, or
 

http://www.ciel.org/POPs/programpops.html 

Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: www.ipcc.ch 

Ramsar Convention Web site: http://www ramsar.org 

UNCCD Web sites: http://www.unccd.int/main.php, http://www.iisd.ca/process/forest_desertification_landccdintro.htm, or http://www.undp.org/drylands/. 

United Nations Development Program: http://www.undp.org/energy/climate.htm/ 

United Nations Environment Program: http://www.unep.org/themes/climatechange/ 

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: http://unfccc.int/ 

U.S. Department of Agriculture: http://www.usda.gov/oce/gcpo/index.htm 

U.S. Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 

http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html 

U.S. Department of Energy: http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do?BT_CODE=ST_SS4 
U.S. Department of State: http://www.state.gov/g/oes/climate/ 

U.S. Department of Transportation: http://climate.volpe.dot.gov/ 

USAID: http://www.usaid.gov 

World Resources Institute summary and links: http://pubs.wri.org/pubs content text.cfm?ContentID=2129 

U.S. LEGISLATION 

Federal Assistance Act of 1961 as Amended: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/environment/compliance/laws.html 

USAID. 2001. ADS Series 300: Acquisition & Assistance. Washington, DC: www.usaid.gov/pubs/ads/300/ 

USAID REGULATIONS, POLICIES, AND PROCEDURES 

USAID. 2001. ADS Series 200. Washington, DC: http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/200/ 

USAID. 22 CFR 216: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/22cfr216_04.html 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE FOR USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 197 

U.S.Agency for International Development

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20523

Tel: (202) 712-0000

Fax: (202) 216-3524

www.usaid.gov