Elsevier

Environmental Science & Policy

Volume 104, February 2020, Pages 107-120
Environmental Science & Policy

EIA-driven biodiversity mainstreaming in development cooperation: Confronting expectations and practice in the DR Congo

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.11.003Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Reformulated highlights: Mainstreaming biodiversity in development cooperation is key in biodiversity hotspots such as the Democratic Republic of Congo.

  • We used expert interviews and analyzed Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) conducted in the DRC.

  • The diverse motivations underlying mainstreaming reveal that instrumental values do not thwart other biodiversity values.

  • Although governance challenges are huge, the intrinsic advantages of EIA as a biodiversity mainstreaming tool are recognized in the DRC.

Abstract

Mainstreaming biodiversity in development cooperation activities is called for by scientists and policy-makers alike, as the current biodiversity crisis can only be mitigated if the linkages between biodiversity and human wellbeing are acknowledged. Reconciling biodiversity conservation and human development is a particularly topical challenge in highly biodiverse developing countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where the population is highly dependent on natural resources for their livelihood. This study combines expert interviews with an evaluation of environmental impact assessment (EIA) reports, in order to determine the current motivations, obstacles and effectiveness of biodiversity mainstreaming in the DRC and to assess the framing, the representation and use of biodiversity in recently conducted EIAs in the DRC. Our findings indicate that biodiversity mainstreaming in the DRC is considered challenging due to enduring contextual (e.g. governance) factors; and that there is a strong support base for EIA among the interviewed experts. Turning to actual EIAs that were recently performed in the DRC, the diversity of framings motivating the uptake of biodiversity is remarkable. Instrumental reasons do not thwart intrinsic motivations –which is indicative of a support base for the non-instrumental value of biodiversity. The use of biodiversity baseline data in mitigation measures is low, and the taxonomic resolution of the biodiversity data in EIAs is uneven. Despite these challenges, the potential of EIA in the DRC is considered high, and linkages between project-driven EIA practice and biodiversity data collection and dissemination should be strengthened.

Introduction

Biodiversity is facing a crisis at the global and local level. All dimensions of biodiversity are under –anthropogenic – pressure (Steffen et al., 2015). This situation threatens human wellbeing in direct and indirect ways as human systems and -biodiversity-based- natural systems are closely intertwined (Martin-Lopez and Montes, 2015). Sustaining and preserving ‘nature’s contributions to people’ is now considered a key priority, as biodiversity loss alters the functioning of ecosystems and their ability to provide people with goods and services (Diaz et al., 2018; Cardinale et al., 2012). This is especially the case in Africa, where a substantial part of the population relies directly upon functioning ecosystems for the provision of a steady flow of essential goods and services (IPBES, 2018). This is recognized by both conservation and development professionals, whose shared views on the positive linkages between conservation and development objectives present an opportunity for concerted action (Biggs et al., 2018; Roe et al., 2013).

Despite this realization, biodiversity metrics indicate a continuing decline of biodiversity and many ecosystem services across Africa (Costanza et al., 2014; IPBES, 2018). Food and raw materials coupled with agriculture are key ecosystem services in the forested parts of western and Central Africa, while tourism, water and grazing are prevalent in the (semi-)arid South and South-West (Egoh et al., 2012). However, area-specific in-depth studies on ecosystem services are still too rare, especially and paradoxically in some global biodiversity hotspots (Pires et al., 2018), reflecting an enduring research bias (Di Marco et al., 2017).

Development cooperation is defined as the range of international efforts aimed at supporting development, which is not driven by profit, discriminates in favour of developing countries. It is based on cooperative relationships that seek to enhance developing country ownership and aims to raise human wellbeing (UN ECOSOC, 2015). Development cooperation has, as a rule, been organized as a sector-based effort. Indeed, cooperation efforts are typically directed specifically at agriculture, or at health, or at education etc. Yet all development is linked to and/or impacts biodiversity, whether directly or indirectly (Drutschinin et al., 2015; Kok et al., 2008; Suich et al., 2015). This by no means implies that the efforts to improve human wellbeing and to conserve biodiversity necessarily lead to win-win solutions. However the increasing acknowledgement of biodiversity-development linkages, which were highlighted most recently by the ongoing work of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (Diaz et al., 2015; IPBES, 2018), has led to the recognition that biodiversity conservation should be an integral part of effective development cooperation. International policy forums are calling for joint action for biodiversity and development, e.g. in the 2010 Nagoya Declaration on Biodiversity in Development Cooperation and in the Global Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, which calls for biodiversity integration into development strategies (CBD, 2010).

Efforts to integrate biodiversity as a new issue in sectors that have not systematically addressed it so far, is referred to as ‘mainstreaming’. The motivation behind mainstreaming is rooted in the understanding that the causes of biodiversity loss lay within the remit of other policy domains or sectors (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen et al., 2017). Hence, these sectors need to address biodiversity issues in order to curb the negative biodiversity trends. Biodiversity conservation hence requires a whole-of-government approach (Adenle et al., 2015). Biodiversity mainstreaming in development cooperation is now an established stated policy goal of most multilateral (e.g. the OECD, the World Bank, the European Union) and bilateral (i.e. individual countries) providers (Drutschinin et al., 2015; Kok et al., 2008; Persson, 2009), and is supported by the international policy architecture of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

In practice mainstreaming encompasses a range of approaches, structured along the ‘entry points’. Entry points are situated at the national, sectoral, project and local level. Intervening at any of these entry points can be done in a variety of ways, ranging from spatial planning to environmental fiscal reform, awareness raising, capacity-building and impact assessment (Drutschinin et al., 2015; OECD, 2012; Vanhove et al., 2017).

Impact assessment, a process aiming at the identification of the future consequences of current or planned actions (IAIA, 2015), is promoted by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 2018) as a means of integrating biodiversity in policies. In development cooperation, impact assessment mostly takes on the form of environmental impact assessment (EIA) at project level, and of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) at policy, plan or programme level. The application of impact assessment contributes to internalize the costs and benefits of the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (Tallis et al., 2015). Impact assessment has been used to integrate cross-cutting development-relevant issues (among which biodiversity) in development cooperation since the 1980s (SIDA, 1998; OECD DAC, 1992). Although the philosophy and systematic approach of impact assessment has by now reached almost all countries, biodiversity is not necessarily adequately considered in impact assessments and in development cooperation in general (Verissimo et al., 2014; Hugé et al., 2017). Indeed, impact assessment (in its various forms) is no panacea to integrate biodiversity into development cooperation, as narrowly utilitarian framings of biodiversity tend to dominate it, and as biodiversity baseline data are seldom used to inform the mitigation of negative biodiversity impacts (Hugé et al., 2017). Yet impact assessment also allows to transparently identify win-win solutions when possible, and to assess trade-offs between development and conservation when necessary (McShane et al., 2011). Furthermore, impact assessment has been explicitly designed to support decision-making and is aligned, albeit imperfectly, to the iterative cycle of progressing insight that is supposed to underpin development cooperation initiatives.

In practice, biodiversity mainstreaming initiatives show varying degrees of success. Motivational, institutional and means-related (financial, capacity and time constraints) barriers often hamper effective mainstreaming (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen et al., 2018; Nkiaka and Lovett, 2018). Moreover, biodiversity faces competition from other cross-cutting development priorities. These issues, such as climate change adaptation, may have a higher political salience than biodiversity, although both are closely related (De Roeck et al., 2018). Reframing biodiversity concerns can lead to an increase in political prominence, hence the importance of persuasive narratives and framings in EIA processes and in their subsequent communication to a wider audience (Hugé et al., 2017; Rose et al., 2018). Van de Perre et al. (2018) have recently shown that simplistic assumptions such as generalized co-benefits between carbon storage and maximum biodiversity, are not always backed by evidence, demonstrating the need for targeted actions in favor of both biodiversity and climate adaptation and mitigation.

In order to gain insight in the motivations, challenges and strategies regarding the mainstreaming of biodiversity in development cooperation, this study focuses on recent biodiversity mainstreaming efforts in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). According to the 2016 Human Development Report, the DRC is categorized as a country with low human development. With an HDI of 0.435 (and an inequality-adjusted HDI of 0.297), the DRC occupies the 176th place out of 188 countries and is one of the least developed countries in the world (UNDP, 2016). The three largest providers of bilateral Official Development Assistance (ODA) are the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Belgium (OECD DAC, 2016). The DRC harbours a unique biodiversity, that is severely threatened by logging, climate change, agricultural encroachment, poaching, infrastructural development, unregulated mining and conflict (Butsic et al., 2015). Yet it is still home to an immensely biodiverse range of ecosystems (Inogwabini, 2014). The Congo Basin, as the second largest forest basin in the world, is still less affected by deforestation than the Amazon Basin. It provides a living to around 60 million people in Central Africa and has a strong potential for job creation (CBFP, 2018). The DRC is the second most forested tropical country in the world (after Brazil) with 154 million hectares of forest (FAO, 2011), and holds the largest part of the Congo Basin Rainforest (60 % according to Verbeeck et al., 2011). Yet, the country loses 0.2 % of its forest cover every year (FAO, 2015). Since 1999, the DRC has a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP), which is the principal instrument to implement the CBD at the national level. Coordinated national-level actions have been undertaken to achieve the CBD’s 2020 Aichi Biodiversity Targets, but most are not independently reviewed. At the local level though, many institutes (such as the Congolese Institute for Nature Conservation (ICCN)) and individuals have contributed to the realization of the Aichi targets. However, there has been a lack of cooperation between the Ministry of Environment & Sustainable Development with other ministries, stakeholders and local communities, and there is still no efficient national system to monitor and review biodiversity (CBD, 2018).

The general aims of this study are to gain a better understanding of: i. biodiversity mainstreaming in development cooperation in general; ii. biodiversity mainstreaming in a biodiversity-rich developing country such as the DRC. Hence, this study aims:

  • To determine the current motivations, obstacles and effectiveness of biodiversity mainstreaming in the DRC; (objective 1)

  • To assess the framing, the representation and use of biodiversity in a selection of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) recently conducted in the DRC; (objective 2)

The study uses a combination of i. key informant interviews, and ii. qualitative analysis of reports of EIA (environmental impact assessment) conducted in the DRC.

Section snippets

Outline of the methodology

We used two different methods. In order to explore the dynamics of biodiversity mainstreaming, we started with interviews, as this method allows to explore a topic through mutual learning between interviewee and interviewer. Interviews also allow the research team to identify issues that may not have been considered initially. Interviews allow to scope the topic of research (Young et al., 2018), and make it possible to probe respondents regarding suggested motivations and obstacles for

Motivations, obstacles, effectiveness and tools for biodiversity integration in development cooperation (interviews)

The results of the Likert scale questions are displayed in Table 2. The underlying motivations for biodiversity mainstreaming show that intrinsic reasons coexist with instrumental reasons. This indicates that the most effective way to convey a biodiversity conservation message varies depending on the target audience and context. The respondents agreed that ‘lack of capacity’ constituted an obstacle at the Belgian level, as well as the ‘lack of political will’ at various Congolese government

The Congolese context & the bigger picture

Given the international importance of the DRC biodiversity and ecosystems, and the breadth of its development challenges, assessing how biodiversity can be integrated in the country’s current and future development is a topical and urgent issue. The motivations underlying the integration of biodiversity in development cooperation in the DR Congo are diverse. Both the interview respondents as the analyzed EIAs tend to combine different narratives to call for biodiversity integration. The EIAs do

Conclusion

There is no panacea for biodiversity mainstreaming in development cooperation. Based on the interviews conducted in this study, the most effective approaches to mainstream biodiversity depend on the framings which underpin the preservation of biodiversity (framings that were shown to go beyond the merely utilitarian one in the DRC in our EIA-analysis); on the local governance context (incl. the involvement of diverse stakeholders; the collaboration between ministries, and the availability of

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank all interview respondents for sharing their views with us. This study was performed thanks to funding provided through the VLIR UOS Global Minds post-doctoral fellowship granted by the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, by the FNRS-FRS SASES project, by the Policy-Supporting Research (PSR) projects of VLIR-UOS and ARES-CUD and by the Belgian Science Policy-funded EVAMAB project. We thank Lucie Ongena for her help in developing Fig. 1.

References (63)

  • S. Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen et al.

    Identifying barriers and levers of biodiversity mainstreaming in four cases of transnational governance of land and water Environ

    Sci. Policy

    (2018)
  • T.O. McShane et al.

    Hard choices: making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being

    Biol. Cons.

    (2011)
  • T.R. Miller et al.

    The new conservation debate: the view from practical ethics

    Biol. Cons.

    (2011)
  • D.C. Miller

    Explaining global patterns of international aid for linked biodiversity conservation and development

    World Dev.

    (2014)
  • R. Nasi et al.

    Managing for timber and biodiversity in the Congo Basin

    For. Ecol. Manage.

    (2012)
  • E. Nkiaka et al.

    Mainstreaming climate adaptation into sectoral policies in central Africa: insights from Cameroun

    Environ. Sci. Policy

    (2018)
  • A.P.F. Pires et al.

    Biodiversity research still falls short of creating links with ecosystem services and human well-being in a global hotspot

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2018)
  • R.A. Samndong et al.

    Institutional analysis of causes of deforestation in REDD+ pilot sites in the Equateur Province: implications for REDD+ in the Democratic Republic of Congo

    Land Use Policy

    (2018)
  • H. Suich et al.

    Ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: a review of the empirical links

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2015)
  • H. Tallis et al.

    Mitigation for one & all: an integrated framework for mitigation of development impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services

    Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.

    (2015)
  • Y.T. Tegegne et al.

    Evolution of drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in the Congo Basin: exploring possible policy options to address forest loss

    Land Use Policy

    (2016)
  • M.P.M. Vanhove et al.

    Joining science & policy in capacity development for monitoring progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets in the global South

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2017)
  • R. Biggs et al.

    Chapter 5: current and future interactions between nature and society

  • B.J. Cardinale et al.

    Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity

    Nature

    (2012)
  • CBD [Convention on Biological Diversity]

    Democratic Republic of the Congo - Country Profile

    (2018)
  • CBFP

    Congo Basin Forest Partnership

    (2018)
  • K.M. Chan et al.

    Why protect nature?

    PNAS

    (2016)
  • CSB

    Etat Des Lieux De La Biodiversité Dans Le RD Congo. Centre De Surveillance De La Biodiversité

    (2014)
  • Diaz

    Assessing nature’s contribution to people

    Science

    (2018)
  • A. Drutschinin et al.

    Biodiversity and development Co-operation

    OECD Development Cooperation Working Papers N°21

    (2015)
  • J.S. Dryzek

    The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses

    (2013)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text