Millions of dollars have been invested in conservation projects with little to show for it: people are still poor; biodiversity is still declining. In this presentation CIFOR¹s founding Director General, Jeff Sayer, contends that incentives are the key to engaging society in conservation, and therefore efforts would have better outcomes if we move from threat-based conservation (primarily good for fundraising and media) to results-based conservation (engaging industry and negotiating incentives and outcomes). He gave this presentation on 6 December 2011 at the 25th international congress of the Society for Conservation Biology. The theme of the congress was 'Engaging Society in Conservation' and more than 1,300 scientists, practitioners and students of conservation biology from around the globe attended.

1. Engaging Society in the Design of
Conservation Programmes
Intu Boedhihartono and Jeff Sayer
James Cook University

2. We have tried to engage “society”
•Civil society in rich countries
•The people who live in tropical forests
•Decision makers?
•Who should be the target?

3. Steven Landsburg
“People respond to incentives – all the rest is commentary”

4. • “Engagement”
– Engaging = Negotiating
– Delivering incentives
– PES, REDD, ICDPs

5. IIED review of 38 PES projects – all failed after 2-3 years

6. • Indonesia REDD – $1 billion - $30 million to
UNDP for planning - $7 million spent on
“Reddiness”!

7. 16 Projects in the Mekong
•Maintained status quo
•Little real benefit to people
•Continuing loss of biodiversity

8. ICDPs
• Congo Basin
• $ millions invested
• People still poor
• Biodiversity still declining

9. Conservation and Development Indicators

10. • Development comes with investment
• Richer people:
– Use land more efficiently
– Move to cities
– Value their time

11. So which “society” to “engage”
• The people whose decisions are important
• The politicians who make decisions
• The activists who seek social justice
• The corporations who control the land

12. Threats or outcomes
• “Threat based conservation” – good for fund
raising, the media etc
• But maybe “Results based conservation”
• Reinforce the conservation “bottom line”
• Engage “industry” & negotiate conservation
outcomes
CI / Erdi Lazuardi

13. Place-based conservation
• 1983 – WWF/IUCN – field projects
• 2011 – Political declarations – media -
conferences - money
• “Field practitioners no longer valued” yet
they engage the relevant sectors of society
• Grand Design or Muddling Through (Sayer et al Biotropica 2009)

14. Thank you