This publication is based on the synthesis of solution case studies published on the PANORAMA web platform under the Protected Areas thematic community.
DEFINING THE RELEVANT SOCIETAL BENEFIT CLUSTERS
The first step was to understand and define which societal benefits, and in consequence which SDGs, are of particular interest in the context of this publication, based on insights from the literature.
The SDGs identified to be most relevant were: SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). It is important to note that this work is not a comprehensive overview of all of the linkages between protected areas and the SDGs; rather it is a detailed description of specific societal benefit clusters of particular relevance to protected areas.
CREATING A SHORTLIST OF SOLUTIONS In a second step, the solutions most relevant to the topic of this publication were identified. Several of the PANORAMA protected area solutions focus primarily, or even solely, on activities and outcomes for biodiversity conservation – such as protection of endangered species – without strong consideration of the impacts on, and benefits for, humans. Such cases were excluded from the shortlist.
To come up with an initial longlist of solutions most relevant to the chosen SDGs, and thus potentially for inclusion in that particular cluster, either one of the
existing thematic filters on the PANORAMA web platform and/or a free text search was used. The decision on whether to select a filter or a free-text search was based on the nature of the benefit for a given cluster and the suitability of the existing filters on the platform.
The solutions on this longlist were then examined in more detail to decide on their suitability for inclusion in one or several of the SDG clusters. Each solution was given a priority rating on a scale of 1–3, with 1 being the highest priority. To avoid bias, each solution was reviewed by a minimum of two reviewers. In cases where the first and second reviewers disagreed, a third, and potentially fourth reviewer added their judgment.
From the ratings and reviews, a tentative shortlist was defined. For solutions that appeared in more than one SDG cluster, a decision was taken on the most relevant SDG for that particular solution, such as the cluster in which it should be included. The decision to include each solution in only one cluster was taken considering that all solutions contribute more or less centrally to most of the SDGs.
Consequently, we assumed that including a solution in all clusters to which it is, even marginally, relevant, would dilute the results of the synthesis for each cluster. However, all other SDGs to which a solution contributes as well were identified for each solution, and these “SDG co-benefits” formed part of the description of “impact” parameters within each cluster.
In the decision-making about inclusion of solutions in the shortlist and assignment to a specific SDG cluster, we considered the full scope and specific intention of each SDG, as evidenced by its targets.
The “summary” and “impacts” sections of each
solution in particular, provided the basis for
understanding to which SDGs a solution contributes.
SDG tags assigned by the solution providers also contributed to the decision to which SDGs a solution contributes, both for assigning it to a cluster and for identifying its “SDG co-benefits”. We considered these tags assigned by the solution provider in combination with our own assessment of whether the solution contributed to a minimum of two target indicators of a given SDG, as defined in the 2030 Agenda (UN, 2018). This dual approach was taken to account for the fact that the SDG tags are not assigned by the solution providers in a standardised, comparable way.
This approach resulted in a final shortlist of 106 solutions across the nine SDG-related clusters. Of these nine clusters, six were directly selected for inclusion in the summary; the other three – related to SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 8 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) – did not have enough relevant cases to allow for a thorough review. A call for additional solutions to be submitted to PANORAMA, and outreach to specific potential solution providers, resulted in further submissions relevant to SDG 8, but not the other two SDGs. Thus, solution clusters
relating to seven of the SDGs were included in the final shortlist:
ñ SDG 1 (No Poverty) ñ SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)
ñ SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being) ñ SDG 5 (Gender Equality)
ñ SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation)
ñ SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) ñ SDG 13 (Climate Action)
ñ SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals)
SDG 5 (Gender Equality) was treated differently:
owing to the small number of relevant case studies, no summarizing of the solutions was conducted.
However, cross-cutting aspects in solutions assigned to the other clusters and relating to gender equality are examined in Chapter 3, Section D of this publication. SDGs 14 (Life Below Water) and 15 (Life on Land) were deliberately excluded, as explained in Chapter 1.
SUMMARISING THE SOLUTIONS
The third and final step was the actual summary of the solutions, within each SDG cluster as well as across them, looking for patterns and trends
Figure 4. SDGs identified to be most relevant. Compiled by the report authors; SDG icons copyright of United Nations.
2: Methodology
between parameters describing the context, process, and impact of the solutions.
Context parameters that were examined included:
ñ ecosystem
ñ geographical region ñ challenges addressed.
Process parameters that were examined included:
ñ scale of implementation ñ building block categories 2.
Impact parameters that were examined included:
ñ the ‘impacts’ section of the solution case study template
ñ the ‘beneficiaries’ section of the solution case study template
ñ contributions to SDGs other than the one to which the solution has been assigned.
All information was extracted directly from the PANORAMA platform based on the case study text and tags submitted by the solution providers (e.g.
summary, beneficiaries, impacts), with the exception of the SDG tags, as explained above.
The content of solutions written in Spanish or French was translated using Google Translate. Maps were produced based on Google Maps.
Depending on the richness of the insights derived, not all results for all parameters are included in the respective thematic sections in Chapter 3 of this publication.
LIMITATIONS
The research underlying this publication was a ‘pilot’
effort of conducting meta-summary of the
PANORAMA solutions portfolio, so the methodology is necessarily limited and needs to be sharpened further for future efforts, for example, by devising more specific hypotheses of (in the case of this publication’s topic) how good practice in protected area management and governance contributes to a given SDG.
The portfolio of solutions available on the
PANORAMA web platform is a function of voluntary contributions by “solution providers”, rather than a representative, randomised sample. It is also
impacted by the priorities of donors and institutions – particularly the PANORAMA partner organisations – investing in systematic documentation of knowledge through submission of solution case studies. Thus, insights derived from looking across the solutions portfolio might be skewed rather than expressing general global trends.
For some of the topics covered, or touched on, in this publication, such as the link between protected areas and food and agriculture, more comprehensive case study databases may exist, making
PANORAMA not the ideal source of information.
After carefully weighing the advantages of either option, a deliberate decision was taken to assign each solution to only one SDG cluster as opposed to assigning it to all SDGs to which it contributes, even if marginally. The reasons for this decision are explained above, but it can be assumed that some analytical “power” was lost by not including all solutions that contribute to the respective SDG in a cluster.
Finally, the solution clusters for some of the SDGs – such as SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) – contained only a small number of cases, limiting the scope of insights that could be derived.
2 The building blocks are categorised into 12 broad approaches, ranging from alliance and partnership development, through enforcement and prosecution to technical interventions and infrastructure. It should be noted that a solution could contain several building blocks of the same category, and a building block could be assigned to multiple categories.
Standing girl in Ethiopia. © Gregoire Dubois.
3
ABOUT PROTECTED AREAS AND POVERTY
The relationship between protected areas and poverty is multifaceted and controversial. The restrictions that are often imposed in relation to protected areas have caused poverty. Yet protected areas have also brought benefits to people’s livelihoods and secured the rights of people to land and valuable natural resources that they risked losing to more powerful groups, companies or the state (Brockington & Wilkie, 2015).
Although access to nature is in many cases an essential component of the economy and the livelihoods of local communities, in some parts of the world protected areas were established in such a way that they restricted access to communities,
with consequent negative impacts (Brockington et al., 2008). Most contemporary conservation, however, strives for a more harmonious and sustainable interaction with nature. It recognises the important role of communities in the
establishment and governance of protected areas, working towards a balance between their essential role in conserving biodiversity and in maintaining ecosystem services on which many communities depend.
Recent research has shown that protected areas may have no negative impact on poverty in local communities (Andam et al., 2010), and have, in several cases, had a positive effect on poverty alleviation, for example through ecotourism and the provision of various ecosystem services (Ferraro &
Hanauer, 2014; Canavire-Bacarezza & Hanauer, 2013; Oldekop et al., 2015). In particular, protected areas are associated with poverty alleviation when sustainable use of natural resources is permitted (Oldekop et al., 2015; Brockington & Wilkie, 2015).
Local people may also rely on protected areas for food, shelter and medicine, following natural disasters or war (Dudley et al., 2017). Several country-level studies have found strong connections between poverty alleviation and protected areas in places where nature-based tourism is well developed (Andam et al., 2010;
Ferraro & Hanauer, 2014). These studies do not allow for a detailed analysis of the specific processes behind how protected areas contribute to poverty alleviation; the interplay of more complex interactions is likely (Andam et al., 2010; Ferraro &
Hanauer 2014).
The review of relevant PANORAMA case studies where poverty alleviation is cited as one of the outcomes can yield more insight.
Section A: Sustainable Development Goal 1
Section A: Sustainable Development Goal 1 (No Poverty)
Figure 5. Geographic distribution of solutions in the SDG 1 (No Poverty) cluster. Map compiled by the graphic designer, using data from the report.
2
Table A. Solutions included in the SDG1 cluster.
Improving financial stability through conservation-based tourism in protected areas in Belize (Belize)
The Community Conservation Social Enterprise Development (CoCoSED) initiative (Cameroon)
Community conservancy model of conservation and income generation for local people (Kenya)
Assessing economic impacts of visitor spending in protected areas of Brazil (Brazil)
Providing scientifically credible technical services in protected areas (Namibia)
Local community engagement and support for conservation:
Ecotourism at Andasibe, Madagascar (Madagascar)
Addressing resource
degradation to enhance climate change resilience (Senegal)
Una tourism cluster – raising awareness on the importance of preserving natural resources by linking them to people’s livelihood (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
The vulture's return: Community managed vulture safe zones in Nepal (Nepal)
Supporting the promotion of Imraguen fishery products in Banc d'Arguin NP (Mauritania)
Creating direct incentives through ecotourism for protecting wildlife (Lao PDR)
Sustainable management of Morocco's marine resources (Morocco)
Community marine
conservation. The start of the Locally Managed Marine Area movement in Kenya in response to the decline of fish in Kuruwitu, on the North Kenya coast (Kenya), see p. 22
Net-Works (TM) (Philippines, Cameroon)
Forest protection and livelihoods improvement in Ekuri, Nigeria (Nigeria)
Lewa, from a rhino sanctuary to a renowned conservancy:
Conservation for people and wildlife (Kenya)
Tree Kangaroo Conservation Program (TKCP): A successful initiative to finance conservation
& community well-being in Papua New Guinea (Papua New Guinea)
3
Section A: Sustainable Development Goal 1 (No Poverty)
SOLUTION REVIEW: RESULTS AND TRENDS From the 46 results generated by a free text search for ‘poverty’ in PANORAMA, 17 were found to be relevant for our review. Solutions included in this cluster.
Context
The sample of solutions in this cluster are predominantly sourced from Africa (Figure 5).
The challenges most commonly addressed by solutions in this cluster include
unemployment/poverty, loss of biodiversity, land and forest degradation, conflicting uses/cumulative impacts, lack of alternative income opportunities, and poor governance and participation.
Process
The solutions in the poverty cluster are mostly implemented at a local scale.
Out of the 12 building block categories,
sustainable livelihoods occurs most frequently, i.e.
in 12 out of 17 solutions, while the categories collection of baseline and monitoring data and
knowledge and management planning featured in 8 solutions.
Impacts
The terms most commonly used in the impacts section across solutions in this cluster are:
community/communities (27x), conservation (19x), tourism (17x), local (16x), through (13x), wildlife (11x), increased (10x), area (10x), people (10x) and cluster (9x) (see Figure 6).
The solutions were listed as contributing to a number of other SDGs, apart from SDG 1, in particular SDG 15 (Life on Land), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDGs 14 (Life Below Water) (Figure 7).
The most commonly named beneficiaries include local communities, particularly fishers, farmers, and women.
Figure 6. Word cloud of the stated impacts of solutions in the SDG 1 (No Poverty) cluster. Compiled by the report editors.
0 5 10
Section A: Sustainable Development Goal 1 (No Poverty)
Figure 7. Co-benefits for other SDGs (number of solutions in the SDG 1 – No Poverty – cluster that deliver benefits in relation to each of the other SDGs). Compiled by the report editors.
4 4
6
3 5
0 12
2 8
0
SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) SDG 14 (Life Below Water)
SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure) SDG 15 (Life on Land)
SDG 4 (Quality Education) SDG 10 (Reduced Inequality) SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)
SDG 5 (Gender Equality) SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production)
SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) SDG 13 (Climate Action)
Family of cocoa producers in Cameroon. © Gregoire Dubois.
3
Section A: Sustainable Development Goal 1 (No Poverty)
Kuruwitu Conservation and Welfare Association (KCWA) was set up in 2003 by members of the community concerned about the degradation of their seas. In 2005, fishermen and concerned residents took the unprecedented step of setting aside a 30-hectare marine protected area (MPA).
This was the first coral-based Locally Managed Marine Area (LMMA) in Kenya. With fishing prohibited within the MPA, fish grew in
abundance, size and diversity. Local livelihoods improved with growing fish catches, and funding helped KCWA set up alternative
income-generating enterprises, training fishermen and their families and creating employment, thus reducing pressure on the marine environment.
Kuruwitu has become a model for sustainable marine conservation. The KCWA engaged youth in non-marine based income activities and training. A women's group was set up, and a marine-based education programme was established for local children.
From the PANORAMA solution provider:
Up and down the Kenyan coast, a new generation of fishers is looking for ways to responsibly manage their resources to ensure not only their own future but that of their descendants. “We never questioned how we lived.
Our fathers and grandfathers were fishermen, and in our village, it was the only path we knew. When our nets began to fail, we were faced with an unknown future,”
said Dickson Juma, fisherman. Following an in-depth consultation, in 2006 the KWCA voted to close off part of the lagoon. Fifteen years later, visitors are happy to pay to snorkel within the healthy and vibrant marine protected area. In 2017, the KCWA was the proud winner of the UNDP's Equator Prize, awarded for outstanding community efforts to reduce poverty through the
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Kuruwitu has been chosen to pilot a co-management initiative working with various stakeholders covering an area of approximately 100 km2 on the Kenyan coast.
Fishermen at Kuruwitu LMMA. © Des Bowden.
SPOTLIGHT SOLUTION
Community Marine Conservation. The start of the Locally Managed Marine Area movement in Kenya in response to the decline of fish in Kuruwitu, on the North Kenya coast
Building Blocks:
Marine protected area (MPA)
Institutional framework, legal requirements and management
Community welfare
Importance of conservation
Section A: Sustainable Development Goal 1 (No Poverty)
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
As highlighted in the introduction to this cluster, the relationship between protected areas and poverty is a long-running debate in academic and policy circles (Brockington & Wilkie, 2015). The solutions in this section illustrate that, in the best of cases, protected areas can address social issues such as poverty and unemployment alongside environmental challenges like biodiversity loss, and land and forest
degradation. These solutions confirm the importance of protected area tourism as a contributor to poverty alleviation.
The strong geographic focus on Africa reflects a particular focus of programmes that work on the nexus of nature conservation and poverty alleviation in this region (e.g. Roe, 2010; van Wilgen, 2016;
Zabala & Sullivan, 2017; Diga et al., 2015)
An emphasis on community involvement and active participation figures heavily in solutions within this cluster, both in terms of the process used to design and implement the solutions, and with regard to the impact that the solutions have on local livelihoods.
They show that successful approaches to local development often rely on the concerned
communities leading or co-leading the process, that is not only being involved in implementation of management decisions, but in the decision-taking process itself. This is well-illustrated through the spotlight solution: the community group KWCA voted to close off part of the lagoon in 2006, which turned out to be a major success factor.
Concretely, looking at the solutions’ most important success factors, we find that developing sustainable livelihood options among the targeted communities is critical, coupled with assessment of baseline data and management planning.
The co-benefits of these solutions in relation to other SDGs are reflective of the multi-faceted and complex nature of both what constitutes ‘poverty’, and the various approaches to alleviate poverty.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In countries dealing with high rates of rural poverty, sources of livelihoods are highly dependent on natural resources. Therefore, threats to biodiversity
and loss of ecosystems have a direct impact on people’s access to subsistence and income (Lee &
Neves, 2009; Angelsen et al., 2014).
The solutions included in this cluster demonstrate the importance of embracing a holistic approach to conservation and of engaging key actors in working together. The active participation of communities is a constant enabling factor, including the establishment of community-structured organisations and benefits-sharing mechanisms. Sustainable financing of protected areas often implies partnerships with business actors, mostly from the tourism sector, but not exclusively. A few of the solution providers have partnered with companies that recycle waste into goods for sale. Benefits from these activities are partly invested in funding elementary needs, such as health and education access, addressing underlying causes of poverty.
Other key stakeholders are the national and local governments. Their support is essential in providing legal frameworks and policies that formalise community-led conservation areas.
In conclusion, these solutions demonstrate that poverty reduction among rural communities can go hand in hand with biodiversity conservation.
Understanding communities’ needs while fostering accountability among communities for natural resources management are essential initial steps to rebalance the relationship between humans and their environment.
ABOUT PROTECTED AREAS AND FOOD SECURITY
The seemingly opposing objectives of using land for preserving nature and ensuring economic development give rise to a key tension in relation to food security:
how can we ensure that we meet the need for sufficient, safe and nutritious food, for a constantly growing global population, without transforming ever more natural ecosystems into agricultural land or
how can we ensure that we meet the need for sufficient, safe and nutritious food, for a constantly growing global population, without transforming ever more natural ecosystems into agricultural land or