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 bio-
cultural 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