The management of natural resources occurs within a dynamic political environment. A fundamental tenet of this management is the asymmetry of the cost-benefit paradigm, especially as people on the periphery experience costs disproportionately. This asymmetry has transformed the environment into a social construct underpinned by opposing narratives. Moreover, this asymmetry reinforces existing social inequities because environmental costs are not quarantined from other inequalities and are often married to other forms of exclusion. Such marginalisation breeds hopelessness, leading to the salience of geographic identities and resource-based conflict. This article explains why environmental justice must take its place within the framework of broader social concerns to minimise the dichotomy between those who control natural resources and those who suffer from their over-exploitation. Ultimately, this demand for environmental justice enlarges the quest for basic civil rights.
In: Journal of peacebuilding & development: critical thinking and constructive action at the intersections of conflict, development and peace, Band 3, Heft 1, S. 75-88
The management of natural resources occurs within a dynamic political environment. A fundamental tenet of this management is the asymmetry of the cost-benefit paradigm, especially as people on the periphery experience costs disproportionately. This asymmetry has transformed the environment into a social construct underpinned by opposing narratives. Moreover, this asymmetry reinforces existing social inequities because environmental costs are not quarantined from other inequalities and are often married to other forms of exclusion. Such marginalisation breeds hopelessness, leading to the salience of geographic identities and resource-based conflict. This article explains why environmental justice must take its place within the framework of broader social concerns to minimise the dichotomy between those who control natural resources and those who suffer from their over-exploitation. Ultimately, this demand for environmental justice enlarges the quest for basic civil rights. Adapted from the source document.
Biologically diverse ecosystems in countries served by the World Bank provide an array of valuable economic services. While the benefits of conserving ecosystems frequently outweigh the costs, conversion of these ecosystems to other uses occurs anyway, because many ecosystem benefits are of a public good nature, without markets that would reflect their real value. The objective of this paper was defined at a Concept review meeting held on December 2009 and is to increase the understanding on how biodiversity is incorporated in a development agency such as the World Bank Group (WBG) and how the WBG can enhance its role in biodiversity and ecosystems protection and management as a key ingredient to reach development sustainability. In order to define a reasonable strategy to prepare this paper, two approaches were used: the first was to carry out background and analytical studies, and the second was to consult with a wide range of stakeholders including Bank staff, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and indigenous groups. Biodiversity provides many instrumental benefits, from food and fuel to recreation. But even where biodiversity is not immediately instrumental, it represents global public goods that must be protected, if only for their potential value in the future. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) has been the mainstay of grants implemented by the Bank ($1.4 billion) for biodiversity conservation and management, but the Bank has itself committed $2 billion in loans and has leveraged $2.9 billion in co-financing.
In: Dudley , N , Hockings , M , Stolton , S , Amend , T , Badola , R , Bianco , M , Chettri , N , Cook , C , Day , J C , Dearden , P , Edwards , M , Ferraro , P , Foden , W , Gambino , R , Gaston , K J , Hayward , N , Hickey , V , Irving , J , Jeffries , B , Karapetyan , A , Kettunen , M , Laestadius , L , Laffoley , D , Lham , D , Lichtenstein , G , Makombo , J , Marshall , N , McGeoch , M , Nguyen , D , Nogué , S , Paxton , M , Rao , M , Reichelt , R , Rivas , J , Roux , D , Rutte , C , Schreckenberg , K , Sovinc , A , Sutyrina , S , Utomo , A , Vallauri , D , Vedeld , P O , Verschuuren , B , Waithaka , J , Woodley , S , Wyborn , C & Zhang , Y 2018 , ' Priorities for protected area research ' , Parks , vol. 24 , no. 1 , pp. 35-50 . https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2018.PARKS-24-1ND.en
A hundred research priorities of critical importance to protected area management were identified by a targeted survey of conservation professionals; half researchers and half practitioners. Respondents were selected to represent a range of disciplines, every continent except Antarctica and roughly equal numbers of men and women. The results analysed thematically and grouped as potential research topics as by both practitioners and researchers. Priority research gaps reveal a high interest to demonstrate the role of protected areas within a broader discussion about sustainable futures and if and how protected areas can address a range of conservation and socio-economic challenges effectively. The paper lists the hundred priorities structured under broad headings of management, ecology, governance and social (including political and economic issues) and helps contribute to setting future research agendas.