The document discusses the intersection of conservation, equity, and poverty, highlighting how current practices and future directions can address these issues. It emphasizes the importance of equitable benefit-sharing among stakeholders and the need to understand the links between biodiversity and various forms of well-being. Additionally, it provides examples from Uganda and Kenya, illustrating the impact of perceived inequities on conservation efforts.

1. Innovative conservation since 1903
Addressing equity and poverty
in conservation
Current practice and future directions
Dr Helen Schneider
Director Conservation, Livelihoods & Governance
Expert Workshop on Equity, Justice & Well-being in Ecosystem Governance
March 26/27th, IIED

2. Innovative conservation since 1903Innovative conservation since 1903
Conservation Trends :‘Hot Topics’
• Illegal wildlife trade, law enforcement
• Use of technology
• Land/sea-scapes: land sharing/sparing, agric commodities
• Tenure and use rights: ICCAs, conservancies, LMMAs, CFIs
• Climate change adaptation and mitigation
• Conservation leadership
• Cultural values
• Biodiversity, ecosystem services and well-being
• Innovative financing and market-based mechanisms

3. Innovative conservation since 1903Innovative conservation since 1903
Natural
Capital
Human
Wellbeing
Ecosystem Services & Wellbeing
• Millennium Assessment defines ES as ‘the benefits people obtain
from ecosystems’ (i.e. contribution to wellbeing)
• Relationship is poorly understood & depends on many factors
• Aggregated analysis can’t say much about individual wellbeing/equity
Human
Wellbeing
‘Unnatural
Capital’:
Labour
Technology
Skills
Knowledge
Goods
‘Multipliers’
-Markets
-Values
Potential
Benefits
Access&
Distribution
Adapted from Daw et al 2012

4. Innovative conservation since 1903Innovative conservation since 1903
‘Innovative financing’ &
market-based mechanisms
• Nature-based tourism – economic viability, who benefits/loses?
• Certification schemes – social standards
• Bio-prospecting (ABS) – Nagoya Protocol
• REDD+/PES – standards and safeguards
• Biodiversity offsets – standards and safeguards
• Marine futures, environmental mortgages, buy-outs, bonds
• Forest impact bonds – shift risk?
• Impact investment – seek social as well as environmental impacts?
• Value chain/market system development, enterprise
development, jobs, ‘livelihoods projects’, Green Economy

5. Innovative conservation since 1903Innovative conservation since 1903
• Equality: everyone gets an equal amount
• Input-based: benefit levels are based on contributions made
• Compensation: for opportunity costs or ‘dis-benefits’
• Needs-based: distribution based on fulfilling basic needs
• Rights-based: distribution linked to stakeholders’ rights
• Pro-poor: distribution aims to improve the well-being of poor,
marginalised or otherwise vulnerable people
Equity = ‘Equitable benefit-sharing’
….What stakeholders
agree is ‘fair’?

6. Innovative conservation since 1903Innovative conservation since 1903
Equity Dimensions
• Recognition
o of stakeholders, their rights,
knowledge & institutions
• Procedure
o ‘meaningful’ participation
o access to info
o access to justice
• Distribution
o ‘equitable benefit-sharing’
o risks and costs (as well as benefits)
WHY and HOW
should we as
conservationists work
with poor, vulnerable
& marginalised
people?

7. Innovative conservation since 1903Innovative conservation since 1903
Understanding of poverty in conservation
• evidence for – and understanding of - links between
biodiversity, ES, conservation and poverty still mixed#
• broader understanding of poverty/well-being from purely
income to food security, health, education, water supply etc
• Gender and Indigenous People - rights, vulnerability,
disadvantage/marginalisation
BUT less emphasis on….
? equitable access to ‘tangible’ benefits (‘material domain’)*
? equitable distribution of ‘intangibles’ e.g. power/voice/agency,
self-esteem, sense of purpose & control, safety, social
cohesion, life satisfaction (‘relational & subjective domains’)

8. Innovative conservation since 1903Innovative conservation since 1903
Examples from practice
Bwindi ICD, Uganda
“local resentment over the inequity of costs and benefits from
conservation was just as important a driver of illegal activities as
rural poverty”
Ol Pejeta Conservancy, Kenya
• fence (reduced HWC) and security (reduced crime,
emergency transport) felt to provide most significant benefits >
Community Development Programme (CDP)
• s/economic benefits & associated goodwill undermined by:
o frustration over uneven distribution of projects
o perception that benefits are not going to those who experience
the highest negative impacts (crop raiding)

9. Innovative conservation since 1903Innovative conservation since 1903
Food for thought?
From a conservation
perspective, should we focus
on equity as much as – or
perhaps even more than –
poverty?
Inequity is both
a cause and
symptom of
poverty