Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1. IntroductionColombia is one of the world’s megadiverse countries hosting almost 10% of the planet biodiversity, with the highest richness index on earth [1]. At the same time, it is diverse in cultural groups including 80 indigenous peoples, 168 recognized community councils of afro-colombian communities (Conse-jos Comunitarios) that covers approximately 32% of the national territory and which is recognized as a common property land [2]. Strategies of indige-nous peoples and local communities to manage their land are strongly related with social meanings of territory [3], livelihoods [4], collaboration networks and learning processes linked with governance and resilience [5]. Since 2010 and every year, the Humboldt Institute has been carrying out the Communi-ty Meetings for Biodiversity (CMB), as an arena of learning, where local people from all country exchange and learn about their community-based biodi-versity management strategies focused on traditional ecological knowledge, livelihoods and adaptive governance of biodiversity [6]. Results of CMB have been an important opportunity to discuss social mechanisms to enhance socio-ecological resilience of landscapes, as well as understand e�ective strate-gies to put in practice the principles of the National Policy for the Integral Management of Biodiversity and Its Ecosystem Services (PNGIBSE) [7] and its Na-tional Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP).
2. AimsOur purpose was to identify key �ndings and lessons of community-based biodiversity management experiences useful to enhance socio-ecological resi-lience in colombian landscapes. We worked over three main objectives: (i) to establish an inter-cultural dialogue arena in order to recognize concepts and practices of local biodiversity governance systems, (ii) to analyze community-based on biodiversity management experiences through the attributes of governance systems and local capacities to manage resilience, and (iii) to identify bottom-up lessons among the policy strategic guidelines for the NBSAP.
3. Methods
4. Results
4.1. Community Meetings for Biodiversity (CMB): understood as communities of learning leaded by Humboldt Institute, CMB constitute a scenario where we are recognized knowledges, practices and institutions of each local group or community as well as their contribution to management decisions of landscape and biodiversity. Science 2010 these CMB gather approximately 77 experiences of indigenous and local communities among biodiversity rela-ted issues. CMB have discussed and published memories and local statements with local positions about integration of knowledges and priorities on the multi-level governance of biodiversity [6,12].
4.2. Analysis of governance attributes and capacities to manage resilience: independently of the topic of CMB, presentation of experiences showed that all community delegates belong to formal organizations at local and regional levels. Signi�cant changes were iden ti�ed in the analysis of institutions as a governance attributes: according to social and cultural identity, organizations showed linkages between their customary practices and the ways of landscape management. Both Indigenous peoples and afro-colombian communities presented higher percentages in cultural-cognitive institutions, while peasants (campesinos) in regulative ones. Each organization experience exhibited clear mechanisms to interact at di�erent levels of governance. Some di�erences among indigenous peoples, afro-colombian communities and peasants were observed about the capacity to identify and reverse thresholds and to integrate di�erent ways of knowledge in decision-making processes. All of the experiences and organizations showed basic capacities to adaptive management according to their �tting institutions.
Experiences on community-based biodiversity management: towards landscape resilience
through social learning in Colombia
Indigenous
Afro-Colombian
Rural communities
Lessons from governance
To promote the scaling up dialogue from local customary institutions on environmental issues and livelihoods to regional and national arenas of landsca-pe management.
To adopt by local and regional guberna-mental institutions the traditional prac-tices in order to maintain the local eco-logical knowledge (p.e. own health sys-tems, food sovereignty). Strengthening of local livelihoods must be a priority to conserve systems to maintain own-nor-mative institutions.
To enhance the design institutions and decision-making procedures that invol-ve the di�erent levels of rural communi-ties organizations, including �shing and extracting activities.
Lessons from resilience
Even if the tenure rights of the ethnical communities are de�ne in Colombia, it is necessary to guarantee the partial autonomous access to natural resour-ces, and sacred and ceremonial sites. A strategy to cope traditional ecological knowledge with other kinds of knowle-dge could help on resilience management.
Combine large-scale policy interven-tions with small-scale solutions [13] in order to improve the adaptation e�orts in integral biodiversity management. Strengthening valuative languages about non-ethnical knowledge systems.
National Policies on Biodiversity Management Priorities
Including bottom - up ethnical own design proposals into the formal institutional me-chanisms like plans, programs and projects for planning and managing the landscape at local and regional levels. To link indige-nous normatives about control and mana-gement of biodiversity with national regu-latory frameworks.
Strengthening and accompaniment in the formulation and implementation of the regulatory framework in the common pro-perty lands, linking national goals of biodi-versity management with local practices and ways of knowing.
Incorporation of the local knowledge sys-tems and practices into all the levels of the biodiversity management, as well to pro-mote the link of these with the sectoral proposals at national level.
4.3. Policy strategic guidelines - Colombia NBSAP
5. DiscussionExperiences that were presented in CMB, as well as the organizations that executed these strategies highlighted the ways as attributes of go-vernance systems are developed in local landscapes contexts of biodiversity management. These key �ndings and lessons are the starting points for the social learning into the idea of communities of learning [8].
The outstanding cultural and ecological diversity of Colombia are strongly related with di�erent knowledge systems and holders, who are simultaneously relevant stakeholders in decision-making processes [14]. Knowledge systems are related to speci�c locations and cultures, were the socio-ecological interactions response to a resource use customs, agricultural traditions, local languages, cultural values, and social institutions [15]. These components of the socio-ecological interactions are a key issue of the governance systems when we are thinking in re-silient landscapes.
Findings and lessons of CMB as communities of learning for biodiversity management in cross-cultural settings, lead us to understand the gap between the socio-ecological system approach and the practices of landscape management at national level. It is necessary to continue pus-hing up local voices in the implementation of national policies of biodiversity management and conservation as PNGIBSE and its NBSAP.
Community-based biodiversity management relies on traditional ecological knowledge systems, practices and institutions linked with cultural memory and adaptation strategies related with resilience in landscapes. It is necessary to evaluate the impacts of CMB in actual strategies of community-based biodiversity management in order to achieve resilient landscapes.
6. Conclusions The CBM are an intercultural dialogue platform about biodiversity knowledge systems and integral management of biodiversity and its ecosystemic services that aims to accomplish the purpose of the PNGIBSE.
CMB are showing links between well-being (livelihoods) and resilience building, related to knowledge systems and experimenting and innova-ting practices of biodiversity management. The National Biodiversity Research Institute and authorities should include this complexity in their research agendas.
References[1] MADS, PUND. (2014). Quinto Informe Nacional de Biodiversidad de Colombia ante el Convenio de Diversidad Biológica. Bogotá, D.C., Colombia. 101 p.
[2] Cárdenas, J.C. (2010). Dilemas de lo colectivo: instituciones, pobreza y cooperación en el manejo local de los recursos de uso común. Editorial Uniandes. 311p.
[3] Head, L. 2012. Conceptualising the human in cultural landscapes and resilience thinking. Resilience and the Cultural Landscape: Understanding and Managing Change in Human-Shaped Environments, 65-79.
[4] Plummer, R., & Armitage, D. (2007). A resilience-based framework for evaluating adaptive co-management: Linking ecology, economics and society in a complex world. Ecological economics, 61(1), 62-74.
[5] Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 30, 441-473.
[6] Serna S. & L Mosquera. (2012). Saberes locales y territorios de vida, memorias del III Encuentro comunitario para la biodiversidad. Bogotá, MADS; IAVH. 148p.
[7] MADS. (2011). National Policy for the Integral Management of Biodiversity and Its Ecosystem Services (PNGIBSE), Bogotá, Colombia.
[8] Robson, J. P., Miller, A. M., Idrobo, C. J., Burlando, C., Deutsch, N., Kocho‐Schellenberg, J. E., & Turner, K. L. (2009). Building communities of learning: Indigenous ways of knowing in contemporary natural resources and environmental management. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 39:4, 173-177.
[9] Davidson-Hunt, I. J., & Michael O'Flaherty, R. (2007). Researchers, indigenous peoples, and place-based learning communities. Society and Natural Resources, 20(4), 291-305.
[10] Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 354-365.
[11] Lebel L, Anderies JM, Campbell B, Folke C, Hat�eld-Dodds S, Hughes T, and Wilson J. (2006). Governance and the Capacity to Manage Resilience in Regional Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society 11(1): 19.
[12] Participantes Encuentro Comunitario Humedales y Gente. (2013). Declaración comunitaria de Humedales para a Vida. Instituto Humboldt y Fundación Tropenbos Internacional, octubre 12 al 14 de 2014. Villa de Leyva, Boyacá, Colombia.
[13] Naumann S, Davis Mc, Munang R, Andrews J, Thiaw I, Alverson K, Mumba M, Kavagi L & Han Z. (2013). The Social Dimension of Ecosyst em-based Ad aptation, UNEP Policy Brief. www.unep.org/climatechange/adaptation/EcosystemBasedAdaptation/
[14] Baptiste B. in Tengö M. and Malmer P. (eds), Borraz P, Cariño C, Cariño J, Gonzales T, Ishizawa J, Kvarnström M, Masardule O, Morales A, Nobrega M, Schultz M, Soto Martinez R, Vizina Y. (2012). Dialogue workshop on Knowledge for the 21st Century: Indigenous knowledge, traditional knowledge,
science and connecting diverse knowledge systems. Usdub, Guna Yala, Panama, 10 – 13 April 2012. Workshop Report. Stockholm Resilience Centre.
[15] Bergamini N., Blasiak R., Eyzaguirre P., Ichikawa K., Mijatovic D., Nakao F., Subramanian S., 2013. UNU-IAS Policy Report. Indicators of Resilience in Socioecological Production Landscapes (SEPLs).United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies. Japan.
Local experiences of biodiversityknowledge and management
Attributes of governance
Level of organizationof communities Institutions
Multi - levelinteractions
Regulatory Normative Cultural-cognitive
Capacities to manage Resilience
Scale Uncertainities Fit
Thresholds Knowledge Diversity
Self - organization Learn and adapt
LandscapeResilience in practice
and the application of PNGIBSE
Figure 2. Community Meetings for Biodiversity (CMB). Communities of learning for biodiversity management in cross-cultural settings. (adap-ted from Robson et al. 2009).
Figure 1. Experiences on community-based biodiversity management: towards landscape resilience through social learning, adapted of Lebel et al. 2006 [11].
Map 1. Localization of the community-based biodiversity management experiences. Source: Community Meetings for Biodiversity (CMB) 2014., Humboldt Institute
Indigenous communities
Regulative institutions
Normative institutions
Cultural-cognitive
institutions
73.68% 10.52%
36.84%
Scale
Uncertainty
Fit
Diversity Thresholds
Knowledge
100%
90%
100%
85%
21.05%
100%
Afro-Colombian communities
Regulative institutions
Normative institutions
Cultural-cognitive
institutions
78.57% 28.57%
21.42%
Scale
Uncertainty
Fit
Diversity Thresholds
Knowledge
100%
85.71%
100%
57.14%
100%
100%
Ruralcommunities
Regulative institutions
Normative institutions
Cultural-cognitive
institutions
20.51% 15.38%
66.66%
Scale
Uncertainty
Fit
Diversity Thresholds
Knowledge
94.87%
85.71%
97.43%
25.64%
97.43%
97.43%
MixedExperiences
Regulative institutions
Normative institutions
Cultural-cognitive
institutions
40% 40%
60%
Scale
Uncertainty
Fit
Diversity Thresholds
Knowledge
100%
60%
100%
80%
100%
100%
3.1. Establishing Community Meetings for Biodiversity (CMB) as communities of learning [8]: we promoted an annual arena of intercultural dialogues for social lear-ning processes about four di�erent topics: (i) food security and biodiversity, (ii) forest management and governance, (iii) local knowledges and biodiversity gover-nance, and (iv) wetlands and local strategies of knowing and management. We just highlighted the role of indigenous people and local communities sharing experien-ces and visions of community-based biodiversity management, proposing con-text-speci�c knowledge networks that support management and planning deci-sions [9].
3.2. Analyzing attributes of governance systems (GS) in community experiences: we proposed a descriptive analysis based on the assessment of critical attributes of go-vernance systems [10] and a discussion on its contributions to resilience manage-ment [11]. Every experience was taking into account by the presence and absence of critical attributes of GS presented as percentages by each experience, in the way to identify main topics and elements of social learning.
3.3. De�ning policy recommendations and strategic guidelines to PNGIBSE and NBSAP: based on attributes of governance and its contributions to resilience mana-gement for each experience, we developed a framework to present lessons learned and recommendations from each community group oriented to the application of national policies on biodiversity management taking into account: (i) governance lessons, (ii) resilience lessons, and (iii) national policies priorities.
Liliana Mosquera, Sebastián [email protected] [email protected] Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Research on Biological ResourcesCalle 72 No 12 - 65 piso 7, Bogotá, Colombia. PBX: 3202767. www.humboldt.org.co
