This presentation by Terry Sunderland from CIFOR shows what can be learned from the lower Mekong for evidence-based conservation by explaining the research that has been conducted there.

1. Evidence-based conservation:
lessons from the Lower Mekong
Terry Sunderland
Tree cover transitions and investment in
a multicolored economy
CIFOR, Bogor
13th March 2013

2. Background
•
•
•
•
Considerable gap between science of conservation biology and
implementation of biodiversity projects
Science is often failing to inform conservation practice which
remains more “experience-based”
Main constraint is poor reporting at ground level and thus
accessibility of evidence on effectiveness of differing interventions is
limited
Evidence-based approaches modelled on systematic reviews being
applied in wide range of policy arenas, including conservation

3. A response
•
•
•
“Losing less and winning more: Building capacity to go beyond the
trade-offs between conservation and development in the Lower
Mekong” (funded by MacArthur Foundation, 2006-2010)
Project goal: “To enable organisations working on the ground in
Cambodia, Lao PDR and Vietnam to achieve better biodiversity and
human well-being outcomes of their projects”
Evolved into more comprehensive systematic review of landscapescale integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs) in
Lower Mekong

4. Study region
• The Lower Mekong – biodiversity
hotspot of global significance
• Major threats: habitat
loss, infrastructure
development, land
grabbing, wildlife trade
• Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam (15
sites):
• Forested landscapes (> 10,000
ha)
• History of conservation
intervention in previous 7-10
years
THINKING beyond the canopy

5. Context
• Difficulty justifying protectionist approaches alone
• Inclusion of poverty alleviation strategies
• Integrated Conservation and Development Project (ICDP)
approach introduced in the 1980s
• Integrated approaches focus on PA’s but in the context of the
wider landscape (buffer zone)
• Previous studies of these missed the “landscape” context
• Very little critical analysis of ICDPs in the Lower Mekong
• What strategies have contributed to the achievements of
landscape scale integrated conservation and development
projects in the countries of the Lower Mekong?

6. Research
•
•
•
•
•
•
Landscape trends and threats analysis
ICDP comparison (multi-variate analysis, qualitative assessment of
outcomes) = analysis of organisational strategies
Governance and policy review
Land cover change
Potential for rewards mechanisms (PES, REDD+)
“Best practice” for integrating conservation and development

7. Threats analysis

8. ICDP Comparison: what do projects actually do?

9. Governance and policy review
• Plethora of global, regional and national
conventions, laws, regulations
• On paper, extremely comprehensive
• In practice, effectiveness limited by low capacity, low budgets and
competing land claims

10. Land cover change
• Surprisingly, majority of protected areas experiencing low levels of
deforestation and tree cover loss
• HOWEVER, significant degradation outside of PA’s

11. Potential for reward mechanisms (PES, REDD+)
•
•
•
•
•
•
PES is seen as a “win-win” for conservation and development
Strong legislative framework for PES (e.g. Vietnam)
Implementation is complex and beneficiaries often unclear
None of the sites surveyed have established PES schemes
Thus potential for REDD+ is uncertain
Much to learn from the past (e.g. ICDPs), especially conditionality

12. Project implementation “best practice”

13. The evidence base
•
•
•
•
Projects are very sensitive to perceived evaluation
Tendency for projects to over-report success
Very little or no actual monitoring of any sort
Trade-offs rather than win-win scenarios are more commonly
experienced
• The term “ICDP” has been applied far less; landscapes are now
point of reference
• Much to learn from ICDP-type initiatives for PES/REDD+, e.g.
community engagement, policy processes
• Shared learning very important to avoid repeated failures
THINKING beyond the canopy

14. Recommendations
• Projects with clear and plausible goals and objectives from the start
have better outcomes
• Stakeholder participation and partnerships are critical
• Projects must be implemented with a full understanding of policy
processes
• Provide alternative livelihoods and understand linkages
• Greater integration at landscape scale
• Longer-term time scales = better outcomes
THINKING beyond the canopy

15. yer and Hoang Minh-Ha
Read more…
and
.
ains
for
y
Sunderland, T., J. Sayer & H.
Minh-Ha. 2013. Evidence-based
conservation: lessons from the
Lower Mekong. Earthscan from
Routledge, London
ve
d.
er
ed
tility of the intervention. By bridging the gap
e effective integrated conservation and
s to apply the evidence-based approach to
THINKING beyond the canopy