Sustainable Communities For Bio Div Conservation

Sustainable Communities to preserve biological diversity Concept Document Prepared by Francisco Chapela /Estudios Rurales y Asesoría Campesina February, 2009

1

Sustainable Communities to preserve biological diversity Concept Document Prepared by Francisco Chapela /Estudios Rurales y Asesoría Campesina February, 2009

1. Background / Mesoamerica biological diversity The cultural region called meso-america, comprises a complex of cultures extending from central Mexico to mid-Central America (Nicaragua and Honduras). Mexico alone is considered a megadiverse country. 10% of world species are in Mexico. Added to this single-country diversity, Mexico alone has great biological importance, making it: • 1rst place on reptiles diversity • 2nd in mammals diversity • 4rth in amphibian diversity • 4rth in vascular plants diversity • 10th in birds diversity. Mesoamerica as a bio-cultural region, may certainly have higher biological importance. But Mesoamerican biological diversity is interweaved with cultural diversity, making it impossible to separate cultural and biological diversity. Compared with other American biocultural areas, Mesoamerica has: • A long record of human influence on landscape. Human activities flourished in the area as soon as the last glacial period receded. • at least 50 recognized linguistic groupings • a population density 70% higher than U.S. • more than twice Brazil population density • 17 times higher than Canada

2

• Much less functional protected areas than Brazil or Costa Rica Although considerable efforts have been taken in the last 20 years to develop environmental laws and national protected areas systems, it is clear that a system based just in biological considerations is not enough to preserve the dynamic relationships between cultural land uses and biological diversity at the landscape level. National Environment Laws in Mesoamerica México, 1982: Ley Federal de Protección al Ambiente Guatemala, 1986: Ley para la Protección y Mejoramiento del Medio Ambiente México, 1988: Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente (que sustituyó a la ley Federal de Protección al Ambiente de 1982) Honduras, 1993: Ley general del Ambiente Nicaragua, 1996: Ley general del Medio Ambiente y los Recursos Naturales El Salvador, 1998: Ley del Medio Ambiente

For example, the gap analysis recently undertaken by the Mexican biological diversity authority, recognizes that there are a lot of priority points, where biological values are high and may be threatened, and the official PAs system has no coverage, or where PAs are declared, they are not effective or are threatened:

3

4

2. The need for a Mesoamerican policy Mesoamerica needs to define a biological diversity policy suitable for its own cultural, social, economical and natural reality. Blueprints designed for areas with less social and biological densities, are not suitable for this case. Since the 1980s, some steps towards a "Mesoamerican conservation model" have been taken. We can at least see tree periods: 1980s: exploratory projects, with support from foundations (Ford, Mc. Arthur) and later from bilateral organizations (IAF, USAID, GTZ, DfID). 1990s: "Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs)" in coordination with federal governments and GEF, PNUD and The World Bank. 2000s: ICDPs Institutionalization A lot of institutionalization efforts have been done under "Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs)", including: • ACICAFOC/CCAD Integrated Ecosystem Management in Indigenous Communities

5

• CONAFOR Forest Conservation and Management Project • CONAFOR Communities and Indigenous Biodiversity Conservation project for Guerrero, Michoacán and Oaxaca • CONABIO Mesoamerican Biological Corridor-Mexico • CONANP Three Regions Integrated Ecosystems Management project

3. Lessons learned and challenges ahead After 25 years of experience promoting better socio-environmental management systems in mesoamerica, it is clear that it is possible to set-up an effective conservation scheme in most of priority areas within the area, IF: • local communities are allowed to capture the most part of benefits derived from biological diversity conservation and sustainable use; • the model for protected areas (IUCN categories I to V) is based on local governance forms, and • sustainable production forms are promoted within communal territories (IUCN category VI ). To do this, the experience shows the need to address some limitations, including: • lack of regional projects with capacity to include in a profitable way production chains and to have market penetration; • lack of business models, based both on biological resources and communities cultural substrate; • poor development of communities cooperation networks; • need of business plans, to attract capitals and production investment to local communities and organizations.

4. Proposed strategy 4.1. General goal and strategy

The general goal of this project is to consolidate a socio-environmental integrated conservation and development Mesoamerican model, building on positive outcomes and experience from previous initiatives to link social and cultural development with biological diversity conservation in the area. To do this, the project will develop an innovative business approach, where "development" does not mean resources over-exploitation or biological

6

diversity reduction, and "conservation" does not mean lack of social development or eviction of indigenous population. The general strategy is to "promote sustainable communities for biological diversity conservation". This strategy, is focused on fostering, nourishing and promoting regional projects based on sustainable uses of biological resources. Along with the projects themselves, local technical leaders will be also incubated. Altough the socio-environmental integrated conservation and development projects will be very valuable for local communities and for regional policies, the technical leadership that can be developed, may be over the time the main asset for local people to achieve a genuine sustainable development. Therefore, a two-tiers strategy is envisioned: by one hand, leadership and sustainable business models will be incubated to build regional socio-environmental management systems, while by the other hand theses systems will be promoted as relevant parts of national protected areas systems, constituting a sub-system of Communal wild protected areas, with a demonstrable and growingly significant share of national biological diversity stewardship.

4.2. Goals

Goal A: regional management systems Promote and consolidate wild communal protected areas (Areas Comunales Protegidas: ACPs) economic sustainability in Mesoamerica, through developing business models based on extractive and non-extractive uses of biological resources, to produce biological diversity incentives to communities, organizations and local institutions. Components: Regional management Systems, including: (a1) a self-regulation network, (a2) a communal environmental services network, (a3) a communal eco- businesses network, (a4) Monitoring and evaluation Goal B: a wild communal protected areas sub-system foster a technical leadership for natural resources management within local communities, organizations and institutions in Mesoamerica, promoting biological diversity conservation within agriculture and forestry landscapes, developing business chains to generate incentives for biological diversity conservation. Components: (a1) ACPs, (a2) Incubation of regional leaders and projects, (a3) setting-up/ operation of nodes into socio-environmental high priority areas in Mesoamerica, (a4) Monitoring and evaluation

7

4.3. Intervention Mechanisms

• incubation of regional leaders and projects, through setting-up and operating regional nodes into socio-environmental high priority areas in Mesoamerica. For an initial phase, 8 Nodes are proposed. More nodes can be added in the future. • development of a communal cooperation network to improve regional governance and to mainstream biological diversity conservation within landscapes.

5. Financing In the future, the project will operate with contributions from regional organizations willing to enhance their leadership developing their own socio-environmental integrated conservation and development projects. Governments and international cooperation agencies, may also contribute to the costs of the program. As a start, for a first 3-year period, it is estimated that about 2 million US dollars will be needed. It is proposed that the Global Environment Facility finances almost 50%, and the Ford Foundation and The Christensen Fund provide the rest together with seed money from other national or international development agencies.

8

9

Notes (1) The megadiverse countries are a group of countries that harbor the majority of the earth's species and are therefore considered extremely biodiverse. The World Conservation Monitoring Centre, an agency of the United Nations Environment Programme, has identified 17 megadiverse countries, most located in the tropics. In 2002, a separate organization, Like-Minded Megadiverse Countries, was formed in Mexico, consisting of countries rich in biological diversity and associated traditional knowledge. This organization does not include all the megadiverse countries as identified by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. In alphabetical order, the 18 countries identified as megadiverse by the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre are: Australia, Brazil , People's Republic of China (geographically including Taiwan), Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, South Africa, United States, Venezuela.

References • Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas, The Nature Conservancy-Programa México, Pronatura, A.C., Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, México: Análisis de vacíos y omisiones en conservación de la biodiversidad terrestre de México: espacios y especies. 2007. • Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas (2007): Catálogo de las lenguas indígenas nacionales: Variantes lingüísticas de México con sus autodenominaciones y referencias geoestadísticas. http://www.inali.gob.mx/catalogo2007/ • KIRCHHOFF, PAUL (1943). "Mesoamérica. Sus Límites Geográficos, Composición Étnica y Caracteres Culturales". Acta Americana 1 (1): pp.92–107.

10