Bio-rights in theory and practice: A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation

Abstract

Description of the Bio-rights approach. An incentive mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and conservation targets.

Full text

Bio-rights in theory and practice Pieter van Eijk and Ritesh Kumar, 2009
Bio-rights in theory and
practice
A financing mechanism for linking poverty
alleviation and environmental conservation
Many poor communities in developing countries are entangled in the poverty
trap: to meet short-term livelihood needs they are forced to unsustainably exploit
the environment. This in turn deteriorates critical life-supporting ecosystem
services, such as sheries, timber resources, soil fertility and fresh water
provision.
Bio-rights is an innovative nancial instrument that addresses the poverty trap
by integrating sustainable development and environmental conservation. In
return for the provision of micro-credits, local communities involve in ecosystem
protection and restoration. Upon successful delivery of conservation services
these micro-credits are converted into denitive payments. Thus, the approach
enables community involvement in conservation while providing sustainable
alternatives to harmful development practices.
Bio-rights is a powerful tool towards addressing the environmental challenges of
our age including climate change, biodiversity loss and rural poverty. With this
report Wetlands International aims to introduce conservation and development
practitioners, policymakers, scientic institutes and the corporate and nance
to the rationale and theory behind Bio-rights and to provide extensive guidance
for initiating and implementing the approach in practice. This is illustrated by
a number of case examples from projects that have been implemented by
Wetlands International over the last few years.
Mission:
To sustain and
restore wetlands,
their resources and
biodiversity for
future generations.
For further information please
visit our website or contact our
office.
Wetlands International
PO Box 471
6700 AL Wageningen
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 318 660 910
Fax: +31 318 660 950
E-mail: post@wetlands.org
Website: www.wetlands.org
Pieter van Eijk and Ritesh Kumar, 2009

Bio-rights in theory and practice
A financing mechanism for linking poverty allevation and environmental conservation
Pieter van Eijk and Ritesh Kumar
Wetlands International
January 2009

© Wetlands International 2009
Pages from this publication may be reproduced freely for educational, journalistic, and other
non-commercial purposes (subject to any disclaimers). Prior permission must be given for all
other forms of reproduction. Full credit must always be given to the copyright holder.
This report was produced by Wetlands International, with financial support from the following
organisations:
Alcoa Foundation
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Netherlands
Technical support was provided by:
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
This report should be cited as follows: Eijk, P. van & R. Kumar, 2009. Bio-rights in theory and
practice. A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation.
Wetlands International, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Published by Wetlands International
www.wetlands.org
Design, figures and tables by Natuurlijk in Vormgeving! - Oscar Langevoord
Printed by Boom & van Ketel grafimedia, The Netherlands
Printed on unbleached paper, approved by FSC
Keywords: Bio-rights, innovative finance, poverty trap, conservation, sustainable development,
micro-credits.
Cover picture: Restored shrimp pond system in Pemalang, Central Java (Indonesia).
Photo: Pieter van Eijk

Bio-rights in theory and practice
3
Table of contents
I. Summary ................................................................................................................................ 5
II. Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... 9
III. Acronyms and glossary ...................................................................................................... 10
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 11
1.1 Purpose of this report ......................................................................................................... 11
1.2. Reading guide ...................................................................................................................12
Part I. Analytical review of the Bio-rights approach ................................................................ 15
2. Background and rationale ................................................................................................... 17
2.1 Problem formulation ...........................................................................................................17
2.2 Linking poverty alleviation and nature conservation ............................................................. 19
2.3 Key requirements for reconciling sustainable development
and environmental conservation ...............................................................................................19
3. The Bio-Rights Approach .................................................................................................... 21
3.1 Overall framework ............................................................................................................... 21
3.2 Preconditions for successful implementation ......................................................................24
3.3 Priorities for implementation ................................................................................................ 27
3.4 Actors involved ................................................................................................................... 28
3.5 Organisational structure ...................................................................................................... 30
3.6 Costs ................................................................................................................................. 33
3.7 Project sustainability ...........................................................................................................33
3.8 Contracting and contract enforcement ...............................................................................34
3.9 Contract duration ...............................................................................................................35
3.10 Loan disbursement and verification ................................................................................... 36
3.11 Bio-rights and policy ......................................................................................................... 37
3.12 Project scales ................................................................................................................... 37
3.13 Challenges and constraints ............................................................................................... 38
4. Bio-rights in the wider conservation and development portfolio ........................................ 39
4.1 The process .......................................................................................................................39
4.2 Aligning to existing approaches ..........................................................................................40
4.3 Adapting Bio-rights ............................................................................................................. 42
5. Bio-rights in relation to other nancial mechanisms for conservation
and development ..................................................................................................................... 44
5.1 The Basis for use of financing mechanisms ........................................................................44
5.2 Financing mechanisms within the Conservation - Development Sector ............................... 47
5.3 Bio-rights in comparison to ICDPs, PES and micro-finance ................................................51
5.4 Lessons learnt and emerging best practice ........................................................................ 52

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
4
Part II. Manual for implementers ............................................................................................. 57
6. Implementing Bio-rights ...................................................................................................... 59
6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................59
6.2 Step 1. Project initiation ...................................................................................................... 60
6.3 Step 2. Project development .............................................................................................65
6.4 Step 3. Contract development ............................................................................................ 73
6.5 Step 4. Project implementation ........................................................................................... 74
6.6 Step 5. Project monitoring and evaluation .......................................................................... 77
6.7 Project duration .................................................................................................................. 79
Part III. Examples from the eld ..............................................................................................81
7. Bio-rights 1998-2008 ..........................................................................................................83
7.1 Bio-rights history ................................................................................................................83
7.2 Plans for the future .............................................................................................................84
7.3 Outlook ............................................................................................................................... 84
8. Case I. Mangrove restoration on Java, Indonesia ............................................................... 86
8.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................86
8.2 Project initiation ................................................................................................................. 87
8.3 Project development ........................................................................................................... 88
8.4 Contract development ........................................................................................................ 89
8.5 Project implementation ....................................................................................................... 90
8.6 Project outcomes ............................................................................................................... 92
9. Case II. Restoration of Tsunami-impacted coastal areas on Sumatra, Indonesia ..............97
9.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................97
9.2 Project initiation .................................................................................................................. 98
9.3 Project development ........................................................................................................... 99
9.4 Contract development ...................................................................................................... 101
9.5 Project implementation ..................................................................................................... 101
9.6 Project outcome ............................................................................................................... 103
10. Case III. Water bird conservation in the Inner Niger Delta, Mali ...................................... 108
10.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................108
10.2 Project initiation .............................................................................................................. 109
10.3 Project development ....................................................................................................... 110
10.4 Contract development .................................................................................................... 111
10.5 Project implementation ................................................................................................... 112
10.6 Project outcome ............................................................................................................. 114
11. References ......................................................................................................................116
Annex I. Assessing suitability of Bio-rights as a tool for project implementation ................. 119
Annex II. Decision support system for site selection ............................................................121
Annex III. Checklist for project development ........................................................................124
Annex IV. Checklist for contract development ...................................................................... 125
Annex IV. Bio-rights: summary of implementation steps and responsibilities....................... 127

Bio-rights in theory and practice
5
I. Summary
Bio-rights is an innovative financing mechanism for reconciling poverty alleviation and
environmental conservation. By providing micro-credits for sustainable development, the approach
enables local communities to refrain from unsustainable practices and be actively involved in
environmental conservation and restoration. Micro-credits are converted into definitive payments
upon successful delivery of conservation services at the end of a contracting period. Integrating
market-driven instruments and more traditional conservation and development measures, Bio-
rights offers a novel approach in which global stakeholders pay local communities to provide
ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, fresh water supply and biodiversity. Thus,
the approach unites the conservation and development aspirations of NGOs, governments,
the private sector and local communities alike. Projects in the field have demonstrated that
Bio-rights can serve as a powerful tool that addresses the major environmental challenges of
our age, including climate change and biodiversity loss. In the light of major efforts in relation
to REDD development and the Millennium Development Goals, Bio-rights has the potential to
translate global objectives into concrete action.
This report describes the rationale and theory behind Bio-rights and offers extensive guidance
for implementing Bio-rights in the field. A detailed step-by-step description of activities indicates
what needs to be done to successfully initiate and manage a project. A number of detailed
case descriptions from Indonesia and Mali illustrate how these steps have been implemented
in practice and the results that have been accomplished to date. The report is targeted at
conservation and development practitioners interested in incorporating the approach into their
work. It also aims to provide policymakers, donors and private-sector stakeholders interested in
financing approaches with insights into the theory behind the approach as well as an overview
of experiences from the field.
Part I. Theory and rationale
Rising population pressures, linked to decreased availability of land, have decreased development
opportunities for rural communities throughout the developing world. Many of the rural poor are
caught in a ‘poverty trap’: to meet short term livelihood needs they are forced to unsustainably
exploit the natural environment. The exploitation itself leads to increased vulnerability and further
constrains their development opportunities. There is an urgent need to address this negative
spiral of increased poverty and severe environmental degradation in order to successfully meet
the major conservation and development challenges of our age.
Many previous efforts to integrate poverty alleviation and environmental conservation have met
with limited success. They have often had only marginal impact in promoting sustainability and
there has been a persistent conflict between environmental integrity and development aspirations.
Bio-rights offers a novel approach to linking conservation with development. The approach
builds on lessons learned from these previous approaches and incorporates successful and
established tools for conservation and development with promising (market-driven) financing
instruments that have recently emerged.
Bio-rights can be seen as an incentive mechanism, not unlike systems for Payments for
Environmental Services (PES). Based on three simple but powerful steps, the approach
accomplishes community involvement in the preservation of environmental assets that are of
global importance:

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
6
Step 1.• Local communities receive micro-credits to develop sustainable income generating
activities.
Step 2.• Communities repay their loan and the associated interest in the form of conservation
services, such as reforestation, habitat protection and refraining from unsustainable land
use practices.
Step 3.• Micro-credits are converted into definitive payments and subsequently into
community-based revolving funds for sustainable development, once the conservation
measures prove successful and sustainable.
Incentives for conservation are accompanied by intense capacity building for sustainable
development, environmental conservation and group formation. This involves awareness raising
about the importance of sustainable resource management in improving livelihoods, which in
turn has a positive influence at different levels. At the field level, Bio-rights improves livelihoods
and solves environmental issues that hamper sustainable community development. For
global stakeholders, the mechanism ensures the future existence of environmental goods and
services considered crucial for future generations or for the sustenance of long-term business
objectives.
The Bio-rights approach was developed by Wetlands International, Alterra Green World
Research (Wageningen University) and a number of partner organisations in the late 1990s.
The approach was formulated as a response to complex social, environmental and economic
issues encountered in the field, which proved to be difficult to solve through conventional natural
resource management approaches. Following the success of initial pilots, the mechanism has
Figure 1. The main steps in Bio-rights implementation.
STEP
3.
CONTRACT
MATTERS
:
A) CONTRACT NEGOTIATION
B) SIGN BIO-RIGHTS CONTRACT
STEP 4. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION:
A) CAPACITY BUILDING AND AWARENESS RAISING
B) MICRO-CREDIT DISBURSAL
C) INITIATE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITIES
STEP 5. PROJECT MONITORING AND EVALUATION:
A) MONITOR PROJECT OUTCOME
B) MICRO-CREDIT CONVERSION
C) EVALUATING LESSONS LEARNED
STEP
2.
PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT
:
A
)
STAKEHOLDER
CONSULTATION
II:
EXPLANATION
OF
CONCEPT
AND
GROUP
DEVELOPMENT
B
)
STAKEHOLDER
CONSULTATION
III:
SET
GOALS
AND
DEVELOP
A
PLAN
C
)
OPTIONAL
:
FURTHER
FIELD
STUDIES
D
)
FITTING
BIO
-
RIGHTS
PLAN
IN
GREATER
CONTEXT
E
)
ADDRESS
POLICY
HURDLES
STEP
1.
PROJECT
INITIATION
:
A
)
CONCEPT
DEVELOPMENT
AND
ASSESSMENT
OF
APPROACH
B
)
GENERATE
FUNDS
C
)
IDENTIFY
INTERESTED
STAKEHOLDERS
D
)
SELECT
PROJECT
SITES
E
)
NETWORK
DEVELOPMENT
AND
STAKEHOLDER
CONSULTATION
F
)
SELECT
LOCAL
PROGRAMME
MANAGER
G
)
TRAIN
LOCAL
PROGRAMME
MANAGER

Bio-rights in theory and practice
7
been further fine-tuned through a number of small- and medium-scale projects in South-east
Asia and Africa by Wetlands International.
Part II. Implementing Bio-rights
A Bio-rights project can be roughly divided into 5 implementation phases within which there
are, approximately 20 different sub-activities (see Figure 1). These are facilitated by a ‘Bio-rights
Project Manager’ who oversees the overall implementation process and represents the interests
of the investing stakeholder. A ‘Local Programme Manager’ - usually a local NGO - represents
the local community (‘the seller’) and is responsible for day-to-day project management.
Implementation of the actual conservation and development activities is in the hands of the local
community, with technical support provided by the Bio-rights Project Manager and the Local
Programme Manager.
A Bio-rights project starts with the Project Initiation phase, which consists of fund raising,
identification of conservation objectives and the preliminary selection of project sites. In this
stage, stakeholder networks are also developed and local project management structures
established. Next, in the phase of Project Development, through community negotiations the
potential for signing a Bio-rights deal is assessed. If communities are interested, a concrete
project implementation plan is established which is mainstreamed into regional policies
during multi-stakeholder meetings. In the Contract Negotiation stage a contract is negotiated
between the ‘selling’ and ‘buying’ parties. Contracts between the community and the
investor are concluded in an official contract signing ceremony. Often government bodies are
involved as formal signatories to the contract. The Project Implementation stage starts with
extensive capacity building and awareness raising, to familiarise stakeholders with important
conservation and development aspects, which is followed by the disbursal of micro-credits.
Next, conservation and development activities are implemented, usually in parallel. The success
of these conservation and development interventions is assessed in Project Monitoring and
Evaluation stage. Conversion of micro-credits into definitive payments takes place on the basis
of the conservation outcomes. Project evaluation activities are undertaken during the project,
to ensure that it is optimally adapted to local site conditions, and after the project so as to
draw lessons for future interventions. The duration of individual Bio-rights initiatives can vary
significantly from short (3-4 years) projects that aim to support local communities in creating
sustainable land and resource use practices, to long term (10+ years) projects in which Bio-
rights is implemented as a Payments for Environmental Services-based approach.
Part III. Experiences from the field
Bio-rights started to be implemented approximately 10 years ago with small pilots targeted at
mangrove rehabilitation and peatland restoration in Indonesia and water bird conservation in Mali.
Since then, the approach has been significantly upscaled under Wetlands International’s Green
Coast project and the Wetlands and Poverty Reduction Programme (WPRP), in which several
conservation, development and micro-credit institutions have become involved in implementing
the approach. Currently, several thousand hectares of mangroves have been rehabilitated, as
well as significant stretches of peat swamp forest habitat. Other ecosystems targeted under the
approach include flood forests, sand dunes and lagoons. Improved ecosystem services have
decreased vulnerability and increased incomes for more than 100,000 poor, wetland-dependent
people living in and around the target areas. Several thousand community members have been
directly involved as contract signatories. They used their micro-credits to develop a broad range
of economic activities, including sustainable fisheries, poultry and goat breeding, farming and the
development of small enterprises. Most projects have been successful in delivering conservation

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
8
and development benefits, although some pilots failed for various reasons, including weak
local governance and limited capacity for Bio-rights implementation among Local Programme
Managers.
In general, it can be concluded that Bio-rights is an effective means of accomplishing sustainable
community-based conservation and development. As long as Bio-rights complements existing
conservation and development approaches and as long as key implementation requirements
are taken into account, the approach is likely to be successful. However, lack of technical
conservation and development knowledge, inappropriate site selection and ineffective training
and awareness raising could potentially hamper successful implementation.
More extensive investigation and piloting is needed to fully assess the potential of the approach
and to further enhance its efficiency under different circumstances. Increased cooperation with
scientists, development workers and the private sector will help to establish rigorous monitoring
frameworks, incorporate multi-sectoral knowledge and ensure appropriate embedding in other
processes that link conservation and development. Future developments will be documented
and shared with relevant stakeholders through publications and web-based dissemination of
experiences.

9
II. Acknowledgements
Numerous experts from various disciplines have worked extensively on the design and
implementation of the Bio-rights approach. For almost a decade, practitioners have been piloting
the approach in the field. In parallel, economists, ecologists and development experts have
developed the mechanism’s theoretical framework, based on rigorous analysis of previous field
experiences, lengthy discussions on the root causes of poverty and environmental degradation,
and on possible solutions. These painstaking efforts have culminated in the development of this
report, the first detailed description of how Bio-rights operates in practice, including a synthesis
of experiences from the field.
We thank Bakary Koné, Alue Dohong, Yus Rusila Noor, Nyoman Suriadiputra and Iwan Tricahyo
Wibisono and all field staff involved in WPRP, Green Coast and earlier Bio-rights initiatives for
their key role in piloting the approach in the field. They have helped to develop Bio-rights as a
realistic tool, adjusted to local site conditions. The community groups in Pemalang, Aceh and
in the Inner Niger Delta are thanked for their hospitality during field visits and for sharing their
first-hand experiences on Bio-rights. We are grateful to Herbert Diemont and Marcel Silvius,
who developed the theoretical concept of the approach and whose efforts linked the approach
to global policies and the wider discussion on Payments for Environmental Services. Special
thanks also go to Alex Kaat, Tunde Ojei, Marie Jose Vervest and Trevor Wickham for ensuring
that Bio-rights was appropriately incorporated into the Green Coast project and the Wetlands
and Poverty Reduction Programme. They provided extensive support for the evaluation of field
experiences and facilitated the publication of this report. Henk Hoefsloot, Pieter Leenman, Mike
Ounsted, Adrian Wood, Sander Carpaij, Susanna Tol and all the participants of the Bio-rights
workshop, which was held in August 2008 in Jambi (Indonesia), are thanked for their constructive
comments on an earlier version of this report. Several partner organisations, including CAMEC,
CARE, Mitra Bahari, Oxfam Novib and WWF provided valuable expertise during development
and implementation of the approach. We wish to thank Joshua Bishop for his technical input
during the design of this document. Diana Simon, Ilana Kutzig and Caitlin Burton are thanked
for facilitating arrangements Alcoa Fellowship Programme, as part of which this report has
been developed. We are grateful to the Alcoa Foundation and the Dutch Ministry of Foreign
Affairs (DGIS) for their financial support. IUCN is thanked for its facilitating role under the Alcoa
Foundation Fellowship Programme.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
10
III. Acronyms and glossary
Bio-rights Project Manager National or international NGO representative(s), responsible for
overall project management, concept design and negotiation
with investing stakeholders
BPM Bio-rights Project Manager
‘Buyer’ Investing stakeholder, i.e., the buyer of an ecosystem service
CB-NRM Community-based Natural Resource Management
CBO Community-based Organisation
Conditionality The principle that contract signatories should meet certain
mutually agreed conditions at a certain stage of project
implementation, before being eligible for receiving resources
CCFPI Climate Change, Forests and Peatlands in Indonesia project
CIDA Canadian International Development Agency
DGIS Directoraat Generaal Internationale Samenwerking;
development aid department of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign
Affairs
Ecosystem services The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) defines
ecosystem services as “the benefits people obtain from
ecosystems”
FSC Forest Stewardship Council
ICDP Integrated Conservation and Development Project
IPCC International Panel on Climate Change
Leakage The displacement or generation of a harmful practice as a result
of a conservation measure in a certain locality
Local Programme Manager Local NGO representative(s) responsible for on-the-ground
project management, facilitation of local community actions
and representation of community needs during contract
negotiation
LPM Local Programme Manager
MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
MDG Millennium Development Goal
MSC Marine Stewardship Council
NGO Non-governmental Organisation
PES Payments for Environmental Services
REDD Reduced emissions from land degradation and deforestation
‘Seller’ The owner of an ecosystem service, providing conservation
services in return for a payment by an external stakeholder
VERs Voluntary Emission Reductions
WI-IP Wetlands International Indonesia Programme
WPRP Wetlands and Poverty Reduction Programme

Bio-rights in theory and practice
11
1. Introduction
NGOs in the conservation and development sector and governments alike have faced great
difficulties in their efforts to reconcile conservation and development activities. Although the
intricate linkage between poverty and environmental degradation is widely acknowledged,
interactions between both fields have proved highly complex and difficult to conceptualise.
As a result, past approaches to linking conservation and development, such as Integrated
Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs), have met with limited success. Considering
these difficulties, many conservationists and development workers have called for innovative
approaches that build on the lessons learnt from the past, avoiding the weaknesses of earlier
initiatives. In parallel, there has been increased momentum for the development of market-
driven instruments to aid conservation efforts. Such mechanisms internalise the economic value
of ecosystem services into markets. This can generate significant funding for environmental
conservation and allows for the development of trading systems in which resource users
provide payments to resource owners in return for the sustained provision of certain goods and
services.
The Bio-rights financial mechanism has been established by Wetlands International and Alterra
(Wageningen University and Research Centre) in response to the above developments. Bio-
rights provides micro-credits for sustainable development to local communities in return for
community involvement in conservation. The loans are converted into definitive payments upon
successful delivery of conservation services. The approach started as a small pilot scheme
in coastal areas of central Java, involving poor fishermen in mangrove restoration in return
for development support. Less than a decade later Bio-rights, has developed into a leading
approach for reconciling conservation and development within Wetlands International’s major
programmes. Currently a range of other organisations, including conservation and development
NGOs as well as a micro-credit institution, have started implementing the approach. Demand
from the private sector for sustainable resource management is also increasing and a number
of major global initiatives linking sustainable development and conservation are underway. While
many innovative financing mechanisms so far only exist on paper, the Bio-rights approach has
proven successful and efficient in the field. Thus, Bio-rights is well-positioned to become a
leading tool for linking conservation and development.
1.1 Purpose of this report
This report provides an introduction to the theory behind the Bio-rights approach and familiarises
the reader with the practical steps required to incorporate the mechanism into existing and
future conservation and development initiatives. Case study descriptions provide experiences,
the lessons learned and the challenges that remain to be addressed.
As a relatively novel approach, Bio-rights requires further piloting and extensive evaluation. This
will provide the necessary insight to improve the approach and better judge its effectiveness in
relation to other mechanisms and under different, site-specific, conditions. Anticipating these
developments, this report should be considered a ‘living’ document, open to further modification
as new insights emerge. It is hoped that this report will challenge conservation and development
practitioners, policymakers and investors to investigate and pilot the approach. Their experiences
will provide vital contributions to the further development of Bio-rights as a tried and tested tool
for linking conservation and development.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
12
1.2. Reading guide
This report has been subdivided into three sections which reflect upon the Bio-rights approach
from different angles and at different levels. The approach is introduced and placed in a context
based on i) an analytical review of the Bio-rights approach; ii) a manual for implementers; and iii) a
selection of case examples from the field. Thus, it attempts to meet the information requirements
of the different stakeholder groups which this report aims to reach. The table below provides
more detailed reading guidance for those interested to familiarise with the approach.
Part I. Analytical review of the Bio-rights approach
Contents: A description of the theory and rationale behind Bio-rights including an overview of where
Bio-rights fits within the larger conservation and development context. One section specifically
addresses how Bio-rights relates to other innovative financing approaches for conservation and
development that are currently being implemented.
Target audience: Policymakers, donors, corporate funders and representatives from conservation and
development organisations; field practitioners aiming to gain general understanding of the
approach and its wider context.
Objective: This part aims to provide an overall theoretical overview. In a nutshell, it describes what Bio-rights
is, why it has been developed and how it operates. It is essential reading for those who wish to
acquire basic understanding of the approach, without getting into too much detail.
Part II. Manual for implementers
Contents: An extensive description of all the steps that need to be taken to successfully implement and
complete a Bio-rights initiative. It includes information on a range of issues including project
development, contract negotiation, project implementation, monitoring and evaluation, together
with information on the role and responsibility of different stakeholders in the implementation
process. Several annexed checklists provide crucial aspects to consider in relation to site
selection, contract development and overall project implementation.
Target audience: Field practitioners seeking to link conservation and development objectives through Bio-rights
implementation.
Objective: The manual aims to guide the reader through all the steps of project development and
implementation that are necessary for success.
Part III. Examples from the field
Contents: Three case studies demonstrate how Bio-rights has been implemented in practice. Following
the implementation steps identified in the manual (part II), the stages of project development,
implementation and the outcomes are described for two Bio-rights projects on mangrove
restoration in Indonesia and a project on water bird conservation in the inner Niger Delta in Mali
respectively.
Target audience: Field practitioners interested in how Bio-rights has been implemented in practice; policymakers,
donors, corporate funders and representatives from conservation and development
organisations interested in accomplishments to date.
Objective: This part describes practical experiences and lessons drawn from the pilot schemes
implemented so far.

Bio-rights in theory and practice
13

Part I. Analytical review of the Bio-rights
approach
Gunung Gede Pangrango National Park. Upperpart of a
catchment in west Java, Indonesia.
Photo: Pieter van Eijk

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
16

Bio-rights in theory and practice
17
2. Background and rationale
2.1 Problem formulation
In the developing world rural communities face increasingly constrained development options
(UN, 2000). Traditional means of escaping poverty, such as migration to urban areas, have
become a a less viable option over the last few years for a large proportion of the world’s rural
poor. At the same time, growing population densities, linked to decreased availability of land
are compromising per capita revenues from farming and forestry. As a result, these traditional
sources of income have become increasingly insufficient to support the livelihoods of many
small-holder communities. These developments have forced many poor people to unsustainably
use the environment in order to meet their short-term livelihood requirements. They are forced
into a poverty trap: to fulfil short-term needs, they overexploit environmental resources, and
this over-exploitation constrains long-term development opportunities and drives further
degradation. This has a far-reaching impact on the livelihoods of the communities involved in
unsustainable exploitation, as well as on stakeholders elsewhere who depend on the ecosystem
services that are being degraded. Limited awareness among communities about the importance
of ecosystem services for sustaining livelihoods exacerbates the harmful impact of this negative
feedback loop on both livelihoods and the environment.
The wide-scale destruction of mangrove forests in West Africa clearly demonstrates the
poverty trap. In many regions it is driven by the demand for fuel wood, which is often used
in the production of salt. The salt - which is extracted by boiling seawater - provides a limited
number of very poor communities with a very meagre income, barely sufficient to meet daily
needs. At the same time, with the destruction of the mangroves, the salt producers unwittingly
deteriorate the livelihood base of hundreds of thousands of people throughout the region.
Similar patterns of environmental degradation occur in other areas, where short-term profits
gained from unsustainable resource extraction are outweighed by disastrous long-term losses.
Approximately 75 percent of the world’s poorest people currently live in rural areas (Word Bank,
2006). Many of these are confronted with choices similar to those of the salt producers from
The poverty trap in Indonesia: poverty-driven illegal logging activities lead to large scale forest
degradation and destroy the livelihood-base of forest dependent communities. Photos: Marcel
Silvius (l) and Wim Giesen (r).

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
18
West Africa. This renders the poverty trap an influential root cause of environmental degradation,
particularly in the developing world.
In recent years, recognition of the need for improved environmental conservation and natural
resource management has been on the rise partly as a result of such influential publications
as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) and the IPCC 4th assessment reports (2007),
among others, which highlight the direct economic benefits of ecosystem services to global
economies, as well as the negative socio-economic impacts of environmental degradation.
The recognised need for improved resource management has also been spurred by the
physical impacts of environmental degradation on societies themselves, which have become
increasingly visible in the last decade. Climate change, biodiversity loss and desertification
are well known examples of environmental issues that all hit the headlines on a regular basis.
So far, efforts to combat these major environmental hazards our age have met with limited
success. One reason is that the poverty trap is insufficiently addressed as a root cause of
environmental degradation in policies and plans formulated by governments, NGOs, the private
sector and others involved in natural resource management and environmental conservation.
Restricted access to land and resources might be a necessity from a conservation perspective,
but often constrains the development opportunities of local communities. Photo: Pieter van
Eijk.

Bio-rights in theory and practice
19
2.2 Linking poverty alleviation and nature conservation
The linkage between poverty and environmental degradation underlines the need to reconcile
conservation and development. However, there also are various practical considerations that
justify such integration. Traditional approaches to environmental conservation have been criticised
for sometimes constraining the development opportunities of local communities. Limited access
to land as a result of the establishment of protected areas or restricted access to resources
resulting from fish or timber harvest quotas, are examples of measures that might be considered
necessary from an environmental perspective but can be a burden on the livelihoods of the rural
poor. Some restrictive conservation measures conflict with traditional community rights to land
and resources, some of which have been in place in certain localities for hundreds of years.
Such controversy is likely to increase as pressures on environmental resources - and measures
to combat these - increase.
These conflicts between conservation and development have led to the perception of local
communities as obstacles to conservation rather than as potential allies. The potential of
working with communities as stewards of conservation remains undervalued. Too often local
communities remain largely ignored in the development of natural resource management policies
and plans, and community-development objectives are often poorly incorporated in conservation
measures in the field. This is questionable from an ethical point of view and - particularly in
densely populated areas - is unlikely to be sustainable. These considerations further strengthen
the case for a better integration of approaches to poverty alleviation and nature conservation
that address the poverty trap and turn local communities into an opportunity for, rather than a
restriction to, environmental conservation.
2.3 Key requirements for reconciling sustainable development and environmental
conservation
A framework for project implementation
Making the linkage between poverty alleviation and environmental conservation as a means
to address the poverty trap requires a sound framework for project implementation. First
of all, such a framework should provide local communities with the means to escape from
the poverty trap, e.g., by supporting the development of sustainable economic activities as
alternatives to practices that cause environmental degradation. It should also build on-the-
ground technical knowledge and awareness of sustainable natural resource management as
a basis for sustainable community development. At the same time, objectives for high-quality
environmental conservation should not be compromised by the anticipated development
actions. The framework should rigorously consider the key factors for success, including multi-
stakeholder involvement, equity, conditionality and long-term sustainability. Most importantly it
needs to build on the lessons learnt from earlier projects that - not always successfully - aimed
to reconcile conservation and development. The Bio-rights approach is a framework that has
demonstrated success in linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation since its
development about 10 years ago. This report describes the methods involved in implementing
this approach.
Generating resources
Key to having a successful project is to have sufficient resources available for sustained funding
of Bio-rights activities. The main means for helping local communities escape from the poverty

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
20
trap is to provide them with support for developing sustainable alternatives to harmful practices
and this requires considerable financial resources. Traditional sources of funding such as bi-
or multi-lateral aid can be applied, but to address the poverty trap on a global scale, much
more (and longer-term) funding is needed. This can be accomplished by sourcing funding from
those who benefit from the sustainable management of environmental resources. This includes
a range of stakeholders including the global community as a whole, which has interest in, for
example, mitigation of climate change and reduced air pollution, as well as more specific groups
in the private sector which, for example, have interest in maintaining ecotourism values, timber
stocks or clean fresh water supplies.
Internalising ecosystem services into markets
Different resource users often take the availability of certain ecosystem services for granted,
without paying their actual price. This resulted in market failures, with environmental services
being available at low cost in the short term, but degrading at a rapid pace, constraining their long-
term availability. By internalising the cost of social and environmental aspects of natural resource
management in global markets for ecosystem services, these market failures can be addressed.
Appropriate pricing of ecosystem services would lead to the delivery of a significant source of
finance, provided by resource users, which can be used to incentivise communities to manage
their environment in a sustainable manner. This will not only contribute to addressing the needs
for sustainable management within these communities themselves, but also those of the global
community. Creating such a stream of finance that flows from global to local stakeholders can
provide ample opportunities for both sustainable development and environmental conservation.
To date attempts at addressing these market failures are still in their infancy. The extent to which
markets pay the real prices of the sustained provision of ecosystems services will depend on
global resource users, and particularly the private sector. Market mechanisms for climate change
mitigation (including the trade in carbon credits from reforestation and REDD), are currently being
developed and piloted at an increasing scale. These efforts provide an interesting test case for
the development of adequate pricing systems for other services. Experiences gained under PES
schemes and related mechanisms such as Bio-rights can help to optimise the channelling of
cash flows to local resource providers. This is a critical step towards successfully establishing
these new markets for ecosystem services.

Bio-rights in theory and practice
21
3. The Bio-Rights Approach
3.1. Overall framework
Bio-rights is an innovative financial mechanism that addresses environmental degradation by
providing (convertible) loans for sustainable development to local communities in return for their
active involvement in the conservation and restoration of the natural environment. It serves as a
payment scheme in which an investing party pays the local community (as the resource owner)
for the provision of environmental services. As such, the approach addresses the poverty trap
as a driving force behind rural poverty and environmental problems such as biodiversity loss,
ecosystem degradation and climate change. The Bio-rights approach has been developed as
a tool to complement existing conservation and development instruments and accommodate
the growing need for market-based mechanisms that address complex issues related to
environment, global economies and rural poverty.
The approach is based on the recognition that local communities, as rightful resource owners,
often exploit the natural resources in their environment unsustainably in order to meet their short-
term livelihood requirements, and that financial support has the potential to enable communities
to adopt sustainable resource use practices and ensure the maintenance of critical ecosystem
services for the global community (see Box 1).
Bio-rights schemes aim to accomplish the integration of these conservation and development
objectives through three consecutive steps:
Step 1. Provision of micro-credits for sustainable development
Following agreement among relevant stakeholders upon the initiation of a Bio-rights initiative and
after the formulation of a full project plan, Bio-rights implementation starts with the provision of
micro-credits to local community groups. These micro-credits can be used for the development of
all kinds of ecologically, socially and economically sustainable activities as alternatives to harmful
practices that pose a threat to the environment. Examples include the initiation of (sustainable)
agriculture, fisheries and forestry practices, ecotourism development or handicraft production.
Other livelihood supporting activities such as the establishment of facilities for education or
healthcare are also applicable.
Bio-rights is based on the recognition that local communities have rights to the natural resources in
their immediate environment. Such rights are related to a broad range of ecosystem services such as
biodiversity, habitats, water supply, flood mitigation, carbon storage and storm protection. By developing
a ‘rights trading mechanism’, global stakeholders can buy these rights, ensuring sustained provision of
certain ecosystem services without constraining the development needs of local communities. Hence
the name Bio-rights. In many cases local communities demonstrate a clear willingness to sustainably
manage local natural resources, but they are often unable to accomplish this objective given their
short-term livelihood needs. Tradable ‘Bio-rights’ schemes can help communities to accomplish their
sustainable development objectives, at the same time ensuring successful conservation outcomes.
Box 1. Bio-rights: from ownership to stewardship

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
22
Micro-credits are usually disbursed at the group level rather than to individuals, to enhance
cooperation among community members and create a feeling of project ownership within the
group. In addition, by making the community-group responsible for individual behaviour, the risk
of project failure is significantly mitigated. To ensure sustainability and the optimal usage of the
micro-credits provided, beneficiaries receive active support on selected development activities.
This includes technical training, study visits to other communities and interactive workshops to
share ideas and plans.
Step 2. Implementation of environmental conservation and restoration activities
Local communities repay their micro-credits and associated interest in kind, in the form of an
active contribution to the conservation of the environment. This can entail a wide range of activities
including, for example, biodiversity and habitat conservation and ecosystem restoration, as well
as the provision of specific services such as clean water and carbon sequestration. Community
contributions can, depending on local conditions, restrict to refraining from unsustainable
practices (e.g., hunting or deforestation), but can also include preservation of the environment
against external impacts or active restoration of services that have been degraded in the
past. Community obligations for conservation are formally registered in a multi-year contract
and measurable indicators for success - e.g., seedling survival rates, degradation rates or a
decrease in hunting pressure - are agreed upon and monitored. Participating communities have
an obligation to assure that these preconditions are met. Capacity building and awareness raising
activities provide participants with the required technical knowledge to successfully implement
the agreed conservation measures and to reinforce insights into the importance of sustainable
natural resource management in improving livelihoods.
Step 3. Conversion of micro-credits
Upon termination of a contractual period the micro-credits are converted into definitive payments,
providing the conservation activities prove successful. If conservation measures do not meet certain
predefined standards, the beneficiaries are required to repay part or all of the funding provided.
For reforestation projects implemented in the past, for example, it was agreed that seedling
survival rates exceeding 75 percent would result in the complete conversion of the micro-credits
provided. If survival rates were lower, a relative proportion (related to the proportion of seedlings
surviving) was to be reimbursed. Thus, conditionality - and high-quality conservation - is ensured.
Community consultation, negotiation and contract signing in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Photos:
Pieter van Eijk (l) and Yus Rusila Noor (r).

Bio-rights in theory and practice
23
MIC RO-CR EDI TS
FOR SUSTA INAB LE
DEV ELO PME NT
MIC RO-CR EDI T TO BE
REI MBU RSE D BY SEL LER
CON SER VATION
ACT ION SUCC ESF ULL ?
OPT ION AL:
‘Buying’
investing
party
Conservation
action
NO
YES
Sustainable
development action
‘Selling’ local
community
Community-based
revolving fund for
sustained funding
Micro-credit
converted into
definitive payment
A force majeure clause protects local communities against unexpected events such as natural
disasters or civil unrest and places project risks in the hands of investing parties (the providers
of financial resources). In some cases, a revolving fund is being developed as a means for the
disbursal of the micro-credits: communities can borrow from this fund, but need to repay their
loan at a given stage and with a small interest rate. Upon termination of the contractual period,
this revolving fund is converted into a community-based savings scheme. The advantage in this
approach is that cash remains in the community beyond the project lifetime, enabling community
members to sustain and expand their sustainable development activities.
These steps of project implementation contribute to a win-win outcome of both environmental
conservation and improved livelihoods. Local communities benefit from increased development
opportunities as a result of micro-credit provision as well as from the natural capital provided by
the ecosystem services that they have sustained and restored. Investors in Bio-rights receive
the ecosystem services that they have paid for. This includes services that are important for the
overall fulfilment of their daily needs (e.g. clean air, freshwater etc.) or business objectives (e.g.,
a sustainable supply of wood, ecotourism values). Thus, Bio-rights essentially operates as a
business-deal between the local community as a ‘selling’ partner and resource ‘owner’, and a
regional, national or international ‘buying’ partner who has interest in the preservation of these
resources.
The sustainability of Bio-rights interventions is ensured through a strong emphasis on capacity
building for sustainable natural resource management and awareness raising on the importance
of ecosystems services for supporting livelihoods. This increases the recognition among local
communities of the need for improved environmental management. As a means to escape the
Figure 2. Simple schematisation of the Bio-rights approach. In case of successful conservation or restoration of ecosystem
services by the local community, micro-credits can be converted into one-off definitive payments. Alternatively communi-
ties might be requested to reimburse their loan in a community-based fund, which ensures sustained cash availability
beyond the project implementation lifetime (dashed arrow).

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
24
poverty trap, Bio-rights can help to re-establish a sustainable balance between development and
conservation. A single (several-year) Bio-rights initiative often suffices to accomplish this. However
under certain circumstances, conservation and (local) development may remain in conflict with
each other. For example, a forest area might be much more economically attractive if converted
into crop land, no matter what alternative income generating activities are developed. Under
these circumstances, continuous community payments (similar to those provided under PES
schemes) might be required to ensure the long-term provision of certain ecosystem services.
3.2 Preconditions for successful implementation
The Bio-rights approach is not applicable under all circumstances. Successful implementation
depends upon a range of site-specific socio-economic and environmental factors as well as on
local governance structures and related policies.
The following site-specific factors are of particular relevance:
Land tenure:•
Land and resource tenure issues are critical determinants of successful Bio-rights
implementation. If local communities have formal property rights over land and resources,
they are in the legal position to engage in a Bio-rights deal and can be held liable for the
intervention’s final outcome. Commonly however, local communities have no legal rights
over land or ecosystem services, despite their dependence on these for sustaining their
livelihoods. Involving such communities in a Bio-rights deal can be risky since, despite the
local communities’ good intentions in fulfilling requirements, the formal land owner (e.g.
government or a private-sector stakeholder) might have other objectives that are in conflict
with the Bio-rights deal. Objectives for forest conservation, for example, might be overruled
by a land owner’s plans for plantation development or timber exploitation. The only means
of implementing Bio-rights under such conditions is to incorporate the formal land owner as
a third-party in the contractual agreement. This reduces risk of conflicting objectives, while
parties can be formally held liable in the case of violation of contractual agreements. Another
option would be to negotiate a formal property rights provision for local communities as a
starting point for Bio-rights implementation.
The Bio-rights approach was developed in the late 1990s by Wetlands International, Wageningen
University and Research Centre (Alterra) and a number of other organisations. Supported by DGIS, Oxfam
Novib and the British embassy, among others, it has been successfully piloted in Indonesia (Kalimantan,
Java, Sumatra) and Mali (Inner Niger Delta). Bio-rights conservation actions conducted to date include
rehabilitation of mangroves and other coastal ecosystems, peatland restoration and decreasing hunting
pressure on migratory water birds. Development activities undertaken include sustainable agriculture
and fisheries development, handicraft production and development of small enterprises. The approach
has recently been scaled-up under Wetlands International’s major programmes, including the Wetlands
and Poverty Reduction Programme (WPRP) and the Green Coast tsunami response project, and have
been actively shared with other conservation and development organisations. Efforts are currently
underway to link the approach to large-scale climate change mitigation schemes such as REDD and
the Global Peatland Fund, which aims to curb greenhouse gas emissions from peatland degradation.
See chapter 7-10 for more information on experiences from the field.
Box 2. The history of Bio-rights

Bio-rights in theory and practice
25
Community support and social heterogeneity:•
Successful Bio-rights interventions require the full support of the communities involved.
If a considerable proportion of the community opposes the contents of a contractual
agreement, long-term sustainability is unlikely to be achieved. The extent to which
agreement and support among individuals can be accomplished depends primarily upon
the social and economic heterogeneity of the communities involved. In some communities
there are large differences in the levels of wealth, education, awareness, and social status
of different members, as well as different religions and ethnic backgrounds. The position of
men and women to a great extent determines both the overall functioning of a community
and the social position of individuals. These differences increase the likelihood of conflicting
objectives for land and resource use within a community and thus significantly decrease the
chances for successful Bio-rights implementation. Another important consideration for Bio-
rights implementation relates to the motives for community involvement. Although financial
incentives are an important motive for community involvement, these should not be the
only reason to sign a Bio-rights deal. In order for the approach to be successful in the long
term, communities should also express the intention to cooperate, around non-financial
considerations such as, for example, the recognised need for improved natural resource
management as a pillar for livelihood security.
External factors:•
Communities do not always have full control over the land and resources they own, even
if they might have formal property rights. Well-known examples are encroachment of
Social heterogeneity should be considered during project design and community consultation.
Photo: Pieter van Eijk.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
26
community land by large companies and harmful activities such as poaching, pollution and
environmental degradation by outsiders. Community conflicts over ecosystem services are
also commonly observed. These factors pose potentially significant threats to successful
Bio-rights implementation, particularly in cases where local communities have insufficient
power to curb external influences. Under certain conditions, support provided as part of the
Bio-rights agreement can suffice to address these impacts. In other cases, external impacts,
and therefore the risk of project failure, despite the good intentions of local communities,
might be simply too large.
Enabling political environment:•
Where possible, Bio-rights agreements need the approval of relevant government bodies at
the national, regional or local level. To be successful they should comply with - and preferably
be incorporated in - policy, plans and legislation. Failure to meet these criteria might cause
conflict with, for example, land-use planning and resource allocation policies and therefore
increase project risks. Political instability or failing governance - as a result of, for example,
corruption - also increase the risks related to successful Bio-rights implementation.
At least as important as the above site-specific parameters, the way in which Bio-rights is
implemented is a crucial determinant to success. Failure to consider specific organizational
aspects of project implementation, without exception, affects a project’s outcome. The following
elements are of particular importance:
Equality:•
Full involvement and consideration of all relevant stakeholder groups is crucial for successful
Bio-rights implementation. Development opportunities for different groups within communities
should be equal, and efforts should be made to adequately reach minority groups. The
approach should be explicitly pro-poor and appropriately address gender equality. Bio-
rights is a ‘business-deal’, implying that in the process of project development and contract
negotiations, all stakeholders involved should have equal rights and opportunities to share
their views, priorities and needs. At no stage should the approach become overly top-down
as a result of certain measures being imposed on communities or community needs being
ignored.
Contracting - conditionality and sustainability:•
Bio-rights deals should always be conditional, i.e., micro-credits are only converted into
definite payments once conservation measures prove successful. To ensure that all the
parties involved agree with these requirements, a contract is signed which describes the
rights and obligations of the different stakeholders involved. The contract should have a
formal legal status to enable enforcement in case obligations are not met by one of the
signatories. Aligning the contract with (local) legislation and policies and involving relevant
officials in contract negotiation and signing can increase the chances for successful
enforcement. Contracts also help to ensure the sustainability of project interventions.
By incorporating details on the duration of a certain conservation action, long-term
conditionality is ensured. Contracts can range from several years to more than a decade,
the exact duration depending on local circumstances. Other means to ensure long-term
sustainability include capacity building and awareness raising activities. These help the local
communities and other involved stakeholders to accomplish sustainable development and
build recognition of the importance of ecosystem services for supporting livelihoods.

Bio-rights in theory and practice
27
Complementarity:•
Bio-rights, if regarded purely as a financial mechanism, is not likely to be successful on
its own. Rather it should be complementary to existing conservation and development
strategies, such as capacity building, awareness raising, law-enforcement, micro-credit
provision and the development of community-based savings schemes. Bio-rights builds
on such current and past approaches and serves as an innovative solution to the major
challenges that remain - in particular, by facilitating an integrative approach to conservation
and development and by ensuring the involvement of local communities in environmental
conservation. Both issues have recently emerged as major challenges to successful
conservation in the developing world.
Flexibility:•
Socio-economic and environmental conditions differ greatly between sites. This should
be considered in project design. Accommodating the framework to local circumstances
and community preferences will contribute to the success of projects. At the same time it
should be ensured that the approach’s key characteristics are maintained and that its major
requirements are being well considered.
3.3 Priorities for implementation
If the above preconditions are fully taken into account, Bio-rights can be applicable under a
wide variety of circumstances and can support a multitude of conservation and development
objectives. Given the huge global challenges regarding conservation and development,
some prioritisation is desirable to ensure a maximum return of capital invested, both from an
environmental and a social perspective. First of all, to optimise conservation investments, the
conservation value of a proposed project area should be assessed. This value should be high
from an international, national or local perspective. An ecosystem may be prioritised according
to different criteria: for example, a water purification company will value the purification and
regulation properties of an intact watershed whereas an international conservation NGO might
prioritise a project area based on its biodiversity or aesthetic values.
As Bio-rights also is a mechanism for alleviating poverty, it is preferable to implement the
approach in an area with high poverty rates, where the socio-economic spin-off of the approach
is likely to be the highest. The potential of an area to generate significant income through land
cultivation (or conversion) should also be considered as part of the prioritisation process. This
is purely an economic consideration: if degrading practices provide local communities with
significant income, considerable payments need to be provided to cover lost opportunity
costs and thus enable communities to convert to sustainable practices. On the other hand,
if degrading practices only provide a meagre contribution to daily incomes (which often is the
case), relatively small payments can accomplish considerable conservation gains. A last major
consideration for site selection is the current level of threat (or anticipated future threats) to
the natural resources that are to be protected. Obviously, areas under pressure are in more
immediate need of conservation compared to areas that remain pristine. The final prioritisation
of a project area depends on the combination of the above considerations. The specific needs
of the investor, combined with environmental, social and economic site conditions determine the
location in which the anticipated cost-benefit ratio will be optimal.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
28
3.4 Actors involved
Nature provides a number of important services. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)
recognises provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services, which together make up
the ‘natural capital’ provided by nature. Other authors have created similar categorisations,
distinguishing, the direct use, option, ecological function and existence values of nature
(Edwards & Abivardi, 1998; see Figure 3). It is obvious that these values are prioritised differently
by different groups of stakeholders. For local communities, the direct use value - the value
related to the direct exploitation of resources such as timber, fish and other products - might
be the most important. Governments might prioritise certain regulating services, whereas
for others the aesthetic value of nature is considered of particular importance. Contradictory
priorities and needs with regard to the exploitation and conservation of the environment can
compromise different conservation and development objectives and lead to conflict among
different stakeholder groups. The strength of the Bio-rights approach is that it converts such
conflicts into opportunities by enabling local communities to refrain from unsustainable practices
and to provide ecosystem services which are paid for by an external investing stakeholder. Thus,
as a market-based financing scheme, Bio-rights is of potential use to all parties with an interest
in the provision of ecosystem services (see Table 1).
Local communities, who often are the ‘owners’ of certain ecosystem services are among the
most crucial stakeholders in a Bio-rights scheme. In many areas they determine how resources
are managed or exploited. At the same time, conservation needs and actions often have a direct
impact on their daily lives. Community involvement and support therefore is a necessity for
success. Local communities have a lot to gain through involvement in Bio-rights: first of all, they
directly benefit from the provision of financial resources and technical support for sustainable
development. This is a first important step towards escaping from the poverty trap. Secondly,
improved environmental conditions contribute to enhanced livelihood security. Restoration
of coastal ecosystems, for example, can lead to increased income from fisheries as well as
decreased vulnerability to extreme events, such as storms and floods. As an additional benefit,
Bio-rights helps communities to organise themselves and to raise their voices at local and
regional policy development platforms. This increases equality among stakeholder groups and
contributes to critical processes such as acquiring land tenure and resource rights.
Figure 3. An example of different environmental values and their potential prioritisation by interest groups. The exact pri-
oritisation of actors depends on individual or organisation specific objectives and on local site conditions. Adapted from:
Edwards & Abivardi, 1998.
DIRECT USE
VALUE
OPTION VALUE
TOTAL NATURAL VALUE
USE VALUESNON USE VALUES
ECOLOGICAL
FUNCTION VALUE
EXISTENCE
VALUE
- Private sector
- Finance sector
- NGOs (development)
- NGOs (conservation
and development)
- Governments
- NGOs (conservation)
- Governments
- Local communities
- Finance sector
- Public sector

Bio-rights in theory and practice
29
Through its focus on environment and poverty, Bio-rights can contribute significantly to achieving
the objectives of both conservation and development NGOs. The approach can contribute
to solving complex issues such as forest degradation or climate change, which require a
multidisciplinary approach to address the socio-economic drivers of environmental degradation.
Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs), which were intensely piloted towards
the end of the 20th century, have met with limited success in their efforts to reconcile conservation
and development (Mc Shane & Wells, 2004). Learning from the weaknesses and strengths of
ICDPs, Bio-rights introduces a number of innovative aspects that, over the last decade, have
demonstrated success in targeting conservation and development in a consolidated way. Recent
global policies regarding conservation and development increasingly require a multidisciplinary
approach. Many of the objectives formulated under the United Nations Millennium Declaration
(2005), for example, require integration of poverty alleviation and environmental conservation.
This particularly applies to the objectives of accomplishing environmental sustainability (MDG 7)
and eradicating poverty and hunger (MDG 1).
The objectives of local, national and international governmental bodies are very similar to those
of NGOs. In addition to environmental conservation and direct on-the-ground poverty alleviation,
Bio-rights can also enhance economic performance at a national level through improved
production of goods, improved markets for products and sustained ecosystem services, all of
which contribute to macro-level economic development.
Many stakeholders in the corporate and finance sector have a direct interest in the sustained
provision of specific ecosystem services. An ecotourism company, for example, depends on
nature’s aesthetic values and the fisheries sector relies entirely on the availability of fisheries
resources. By investing in Bio-rights, private-sector stakeholders can ensure that specific
Table 1. Reasons for being involved in Bio-rights initiatives among civil society, government and private-sector
stakeholders.
Local communities X X X
Conservation and development NGOs X X X
Governmental bodies X X X X X
Corporate sector X X X X X
Finance sector X X X X X
Direct income for development
Provision of environmental goods and services
Producing ‘green’ products (FSC, MSC etc.)
Meeting obligations
Linking to multi-sectoral policies and plans
New tool for conservation and development
Corporate Social Responsibility
Macro-economic development
Increased stability and improved markets

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
30
services are maintained and restored. The approach can also contribute to accomplishing
Corporate Social Responsibility objectives, which have become increasingly important in the
private sector’s day-to-day business. Bio-rights might also serve as a tool for complying with
regulations on, for example, climate change, habitat degradation or water pollution. The positive
social impacts of Bio-rights benefit the private sector as well. Improved livelihoods, enhanced
community organisation and increased social and political stability can also - indirectly - contribute
to a substantial improvement of economic markets.
3.5 Organisational structure
Bio-rights essentially functions as a business deal between a buying partner with specific
interests in the maintenance or restoration of certain ecosystem services and the local
community as a selling partner who provides these services in return for support for sustainable
development. To enable successful contract negotiation and project implementation, a firm but
Figure 4. Framework for Bio-rights implementation. Potential buyers are depicted within dashed line.
Bio-rights Manager
(NGO, Goverment)
Local programme Manager
(NGO, Government)
Other Local
Stakeholders
Local Community
Local
Government
Private Sector
GovernmentNGO
Finance Sector

Bio-rights in theory and practice
31
simple organisational framework has been developed (see Figure 4). This framework ensures full
consideration of important criteria such as equality among stakeholder groups, conditionality and
permanence. It is built around a limited number of key actors responsible for project development
and day-to-day implementation. Equality is considered of particular importance, not only from an
ethical perspective, but also from a practical point of view: a top-down approach is not likely to
render the desired conservation and development outcomes. The mainstreaming of Bio-rights
with local policies and the priorities of other stakeholders is facilitated, as much as possible,
through establishing active linkages with, for example, local government bodies, interest groups
and the corporate sector.
Two key actors play a crucial role in Bio-rights implementation: the Bio-rights Project Manager
and the Local Programme Manager (Table 2). The Bio-rights Project Manager usually is a
representative of a governmental institution or NGO. In small-scale projects this task is fulfilled
by an individual, whereas larger projects might require a project coordination team. Sometimes
the Bio-rights Project Manager is the buying partner itself, for example, in cases where an NGO
pays for the provision of certain ecosystem services. More commonly however, the Bio-rights
Project Manager is an intermediary between an investing party (e.g. a company or donor agency)
and the local community (and associated representatives). An important task of the Bio-rights
Project Manager is to oversee overall project progress and facilitate project development. This
entails generating interest and funding among investors (in cases where the Bio-rights Project
Manager is not the buying party himself), selecting appropriate project locations and ensuring
fulfilment of contract obligations. The Bio-rights Project Manager also serves as a ‘buying party
representative’, by ensuring that investors’ needs are well communicated to local communities
and incorporated within the project design and contract formulation. Thus, the Project Manager
takes responsibility for ensuring that a buying party gets what it paid for. The Local Programme
Manager usually is a local NGO or CBO with strong working experience in the region and
extensive knowledge of local ecological and socio-economic conditions. Its main task is to guide
day-to-day Bio-rights implementation by building capacity and raising awareness among local
communities, ensuring timely implementation of project activities and monitoring and evaluating
project proceedings. Thus, it ensures that project objectives and contractual obligations are met.
The Local Programme Manager also acts as a community representative, by communicating local
needs and priorities to other stakeholders in the process of project development and contract
negotiation and during actual implementation of conservation and development activities. To
ensure mainstreaming of Bio-rights in local policies and plans, the Local Programme Manager
also liaises with other relevant local stakeholders throughout the project.
Table 2. Main responsibilities of Bio-rights manager (l) and Local Programme Manager (r) in project implementation.
Bio-rights Project Manager Local Programme Manager
Attracting buyers and generating project funding Network development and facilitation of contract
negotiations
Assessing and selecting potential project sites Capacity building and awareness raising,
provision of technical support
Appointing Local Programme Manager Monitoring and evaluating project activities
Representation of the buying party Representing the local community
Overall project management Liaising with local stakeholders
Ensuring fulfilment and enforcement of contractual obligations Day-to-day project implementation

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
32
The local communities and the investors themselves also have a significant role to play in
ensuring smooth project implementation. Local communities are crucial determinants of
success, given their direct involvement in the implementation of actual conservation measures
and development activities. Besides relying on the Local Programme Manager as a facilitator
and representative, local communities are also directly involved in project development and
contract negotiations. This is enabled, for example, through community consultations, which
serve as an important tool to incorporate local needs, to fit projects with local socio-economic
conditions and to ensure that local (traditional) knowledge is incorporated into project design.
Similarly, stakeholder consultations provide the buying party with ample opportunities to be
involved in project development and contract negotiation.
The consultations also enable local government agencies and other local actors to be involved.
Initially, these consultations should involve all relevant stakeholders, including the Bio-rights
Project Manager and buying parties. Once projects are being implemented and local support
is ensured, most contacts with local stakeholders are maintained by the Local Programme
Manager.
Figure 5. Relationship between opportunity costs for Bio-rights implementation, willingness to pay by global buyers and the
potential value of ecosystem services. Adapted from Mulder (2004).
POTENTIAL VALUE OF
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
WILLINGNESS TO PAY BY
THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY
FOR CONSERVATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
LOST OPPORTUNITY
COSTS FOR LOCAL
COMMUNITIES
PAYMENT
GROWTH
POSSIBILLITY
DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN
WILLINGNESS TO
PAY BY BUYERS AND
LOCAL OPPORTINITY
COSTS
$

Bio-rights in theory and practice
33
3.6 Costs
The total costs for implementing Bio-rights consist of three distinct elements: i) lost opportunity
costs, ii) implementation costs and iii) overhead expenditures. A significant proportion of the
budget is spent on incentivising local communities to develop sustainable alternatives to harmful
practices. To accomplish this, the payment should at least cover lost opportunity costs and
potential use costs, i.e., the income that would have been generated in the short term in the
absence of conservation measures (the business as usual scenario). These costs differ greatly
among locations. In densely populated areas with a high potential to generate significant income,
lost opportunity costs are likely to be high, whereas in many poor regions with low population
densities they are often low. Opportunity costs should be realistic and preferably be calculated
based on the perception of the local community itself, rather than on world-market values or
potential values which have not yet been internalised in existing markets or which only exist
on global markets. The total monetary value of a tiger, for example, based on (world) market
prices and aesthetic considerations, might be (very) much higher compared to the local value
it would represent to local communities. If payments to communities were linked to such a
potential global valuation, they may well be excessive from a local perspective, and insufficiently
attractive to external buyers. However, by appraising goods from a community perspective,
a fair and affordable payment scheme can be ensured which meets the requirements of the
local community and in line with the ‘willingness to pay’ of the buying party (see Figure 5).
Stakeholder consultations and baseline inventories can help to establish an accurate estimate
of lost opportunity costs. As Bio-rights also aims to improve livelihoods, payments to local
communities should not just match the lost opportunity costs in relation to the business-as-
usual scenario, but preferably also provide additional funding that will help communities to make
a fundamental improvement in their local economy. The extent of additional funding needed
depends on local socio-economic conditions and specific community needs as expressed
during the project development phase.
Funding should be made available as well for the costs related to the actual conservation
measures. In the case of community-based patrolling, for example, fuel and transport costs
should be covered. For reforestation activities, costs related to nursery development, seed and
seedling procurement, and sometimes also protective measures, should be considered. The
exact implementation costs within a Bio-rights initiative depend on the selection of specific
conservation measures. If local communities receive payments for refraining from environmental
degradation, these costs are usually low. If communities are involved in the actual restoration of
entire ecosystems, they can be much higher.
A small proportion of the overall project budget is allocated for overhead costs. These cover
the human and financial resources required by the Bio-rights Project Manager in the process
of project development, contract negotiation and project management. Similarly, the overhead
budget pays the Local Programme Manager, who is hired by the Bio-rights Project Manager.
3.7 Project sustainability
As described previously, various mechanisms are put in place to ensure the long-term
sustainability of Bio-rights interventions, including conditionality (through contractual agreements),
stakeholder equality, policy alignment and capacity building. One particularly important means
for accomplishing sustainability is awareness-raising among communities, emphasising the

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
34
importance of sound environmental management for livelihood sustenance. Under certain
circumstances this awareness - combined with some initial financial support - is enough to
address the poverty trap and accomplish long-term sustainability. Sometimes however, when
unsustainable exploitation and associated land conversion remain commercially more attractive
than maintaining existing resources, continuous funding is needed to ensure that communities
keep managing their environment in a sustainable way. In these cases it is an absolute necessity
that continuous cash flows are secured, for example, by making a linkage with other mechanisms
such as tradable credit or labelling schemes or by establishing a trust fund. More details are
provided in Chapter 4.
Another way of maximising project outcome and accomplishing long-term sustainability is
to incorporate financial mechanisms that ensure long-term community access to funding for
sustainable development. This can be arranged, for example, through the development of a
revolving fund, which is managed by the community involved. Instead of converting micro-
credits into a definitive payment upon delivery of success, it can be agreed that communities
reimburse their loan into an internally managed revolving fund. This revolving fund can, in turn,
be used to provide additional loans to individual community members based on sustainability
conditions that were predefined in the Bio-rights contract. This approach ensures the continuity
of sustainability criteria and development opportunities for local communities beyond the defined
contractual period and enhances the maintenance and expansion of well-organised community
groups.
3.8 Contracting and contract enforcement
Contracts are a key tool for ensuring conditionality (of payments) and, associated with that, long-
term sustainability. They register the practicalities of an agreed project intervention and include
the rights and obligations of both the buying and selling parties. Sometimes a third stakeholder
needs to be incorporated in the contract - particularly when local communities don’t have
formal rights over land or resources. In this case, the rights and obligations of the formal land
owner should also be included in the contract, including an expression of explicit support for the
proposed Bio-rights intervention. Failure to acquire formal support from the official land owner
(and to register this in a contract), significantly increases project risks at a later stage, as their
land and resource management objectives might be in conflict with the undertaken interventions.
Contracts are the end product of an intensive process of discussion and consultation in which
all relevant stakeholders are involved. Care should be taken to ensure that contract negotiations
are based upon the full equality of different stakeholder groups.
A sound Bio-rights contract should at least incorporate the following issues:
Services delivered by the local community:• detailed description of the specific ecosystem
services that are to be delivered by the selling party, including, where applicable, the quantity
and duration of service delivery. The contract should specify and describe the different
measures undertaken to accomplish service provision.
Resources provided by the buying party:• detailed description of financial and non-financial
support provided to the local community by the buying party. Details of financial support
should include the quantity and mode of disbursement (number of instalments, duration of
funding, etc.). Non-financial support might include the provision of goods and non-material
services, such as technical training and awareness-raising.

Bio-rights in theory and practice
35
Development activities undertaken:• detailed description of development activities undertaken
under the project. Specification of sustainability criteria related to the use of the financial
resources provided.
Miscellaneous obligations:• other obligations for the buying and selling parties not described
above. These will differ among individual projects but could include obligations to provide or
attend training and capacity building activities, monitoring and evaluation requirements, etc.
They also include agreements between stakeholders on strategies to curb potential side
effects such as leakage and increased immigration.
Third parties• : Description of the roles and obligations of any third parties (including formal
land owners) included in the contract.
Conditions for micro-credit conversion:• Details on the monitoring and evaluation of the
project interventions and on success indicators that will be used to determine whether
contractual obligations have been met. Description of different scenarios for project
outcomes, identifying when micro-credits are fully converted into definitive payments, under
which circumstances only part of a micro-credit is converted and when full reimbursement
of a micro-credit is required.
Description of participants and project area:• Details on (the number of) participants
involved in the initiative and on how individual community beneficiaries relate to each other.
Information should be provided as to the extent to which group members are responsible for
each other’s activities and at what scale micro-credits are disbursed (e.g., at the individual,
group or village level). Data on the delineation of the area in which project interventions are
to be undertaken.
Liability:• Description of options if one of the parties involved does not fulfil project obligations.
Including details on project termination and (legal) enforcement in case of violation of the
terms and conditions.
Force majeure clause:• details on rights and obligations in case of unexpected events such
as natural disasters, political unrest or war.
Contract duration•
The exact status of a Bio-rights contract depends to a great extent on the governance situation
in the project location. In areas with poor governance, contracts have a rather weak status. In
this case, building trust and building on governance structures within communities are likely to
be far more effective than relying solely on formal law enforcement. In other areas contractual
agreements might be much more readily enforceable. Irrespective of the, the local governance
situation, efforts should always be made to ensure that contracts have, as much as possible, a
formal status and that project activities are formally endorsed by the relevant (local), governmental
agencies.
3.9 Contract duration
The appropriate duration of a Bio-rights initiative is highly site-specific. If communities themselves
are direct beneficiaries of improved ecosystem conditions, a short-term (several year) project
might suffice to ensure ecosystem service provision. Once communities have escaped from the
poverty trap and awareness of, and technical capacity for sustainable resource management has
been raised, there is no need for further funding. If the provision of certain ecosystem services
does not sufficiently benefit the communities themselves, a permanent incentive mechanism
is needed to ensure the provision of sustained services. In this case, as with Payment for
Environmental Services (PES) approaches, continuous project implementation under renewable
contracts is required.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
36
3.10 Loan disbursement and verification
Micro-credits are usually provided at the community group level, each group consisting of, on
average, 20-50 people. Disbursing loans to groups, rather than to individuals, ensures that
group participants motivate each other and take responsibility for each other’s actions. In
addition, a group-level approach facilitates successful community consultations and efficient
capacity building and awareness raising activities. Usually, loans are provided through a single
payment at the beginning of a project. Sometimes, however, loan disbursal in several instalments
throughout the project might be more desirable, particularly in cases where the project risks are
high. Verification of project outcomes - and subsequent conversion of micro-credits - takes
place through the field monitoring of project activities. Specific contractual agreements on
ecosystem service delivery serve as a reference in this process, with indicators for success
being described in the contract and their nature being dependent on the agreed conservation
measures. Examples of such indicators might include seedling survival rates within reforestation
projects, or the number of dams constructed in drainage canals within peatland restoration
projects. For large-scale conservation and restoration initiatives, modern techniques such as
remote sensing and GIS can help to measure and quantify success.
Where possible, verification of project outcomes takes place through joint monitoring by the
Local Programme Manager and the local community itself. Involving the community in the
monitoring process ensures project transparency and enhances environmental awareness
among participants. The Bio-rights Project Manager oversees the project monitoring process
to make sure that conservation requirements are met. Where applicable, external auditors
might also be involved. This might be particularly relevant for large-scale projects that need to
comply with international standards such as reforestation and REDD activities under voluntary
or compliance carbon markets.
The conservation and development communities face several complex challenges, including
accomplishing the United Nations Millennium Development Goals by 2015 and addressing global
climate change and biodiversity loss. It is increasingly recognised that there is a need for market-
driven instruments that can generate the resources required to accomplish these objectives as well
as the importance of involving local communities in environmental conservation. Based on these
developments, there is a growing interest in innovative financing mechanisms that effectively channel
global funding for conservation and development to people on the ground. Bio-rights may well prove to
be a promising approach to accomplish this. Individual projects have demonstrated Bio-rights’ ability to
deliver a range of social, economic and environmental benefits that are in line with the win-win objectives
of the global community. Making the leap from implementing individual projects to developing a single,
coordinated Bio-rights fund might help to target major conservation and development challenges even
more effectively. A single fund would enable effective dissemination of funding to project areas where
the conservation and development outcomes are likely to be optimal. Similarly, a centrally coordinated
fund would have the advantages of reduced overhead costs, improved transfer of knowledge among
individual initiatives and an alignment of actions on the ground. In contrast to individual projects, which
usually have funding available only for a short timeframe, a Bio-rights fund might provide sustained
funding to specific areas in need of constant support. This is an important criterion for market-based
payment schemes to be successful.
Box 3. Towards a Bio-rights fund

Bio-rights in theory and practice
37
3.11 Bio-rights and policy
Successful Bio-rights implementation depends very much on the local, national and international
policy and governance environment. It is important that the specific conservation and
development objectives of a Bio-rights initiative match those of local or national governments.
This helps to avoid project failure due to conflicting interests. Land use planning policies and
plans, particularly, should be taken into account. Secondly, there should be an enabling policy
environment in place that is supportive of the specific framework under which Bio-rights operates.
Recognition of community rights over land and resources is very important, as this is a key
determinant for increased community interest in conservation and facilitates the development
of community contracts. As Bio-rights aims to work as much as possible through community
consultations based upon the equality of stakeholder groups, local policies should preferably
also be in favour of community involvement in policy development and planning processes.
In some areas such an enabling environment is already in place, but often there is an urgent
need to advocate for rights provision and increased community participation. The development
of multi-sectoral working groups within governments to address this issue and the initiation of
schemes to develop community-based natural resource management (CB-NRM; see Chapter
4) can help to accomplish this. This can be undertaken in advance of, or in parallel with Bio-
rights implementation.
Besides the need for a (local) policy framework that fits with the specific community-based
approaches adopted under Bio-rights, there also is a need to build national and international
support for the concept of providing payments for environmental services. First of all, appropriate
pricing of environmental goods and services needs to be established, particularly through
the development of regulations that should be set by national governments and international
conventions. Secondly, the rights of local communities over ecosystem services and their
role in environmental conservation should be recognised. These two factors will enable the
establishment of large-scale global payment mechanisms to channel international finance for
conservation to local communities in return for the provision of ecosystem services. The REDD
mechanism which is likely to be piloted at a large-scale in the coming years, might be a good
test case for such a payment scheme, provided that the role of local communities is sufficiently
recognised (see Chapter 4).
3.12 Project scales
Bio-rights projects can be implemented at various scales, ranging from small-scale initiatives
targeted at very specific community groups, to major programmes, focusing on the entire
population of a certain area. Irrespective of the anticipated scale of a proposed project, success
depends on adopting a community-level approach, targeting uniform community groups of
a limited size. For large-scale initiatives this implies a need for division into many small sub-
projects through, for example the creation of a small-grant programme involving a large number
of local NGOs or CBOs which adopt the role of Local Programme Managers. If this is the case, a
single Bio-rights Project Manager will liaise with a large number of Local Programme Managers,
establishing individual contracts with the local communities.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
38
3.13 Challenges and constraints
Various challenges and constraints, commonly encountered in other conservation and
development initiatives, are also applicable to the Bio-rights approach. These should be
taken into account and actively addressed during the site selection, project development and
implementation phases to avoid complications or even project failure. Leakage is one of the
most prominent constraints in conservation initiatives: how to prevent, for example, conservation
activities targeted at a forest area or a coral reef from merely displacing environmental degradation
to another nearby location? Local socio-economic and environmental site conditions are the
most important drivers of leakage. The geographic location of certain high-value natural areas,
as well as the ease with which certain practices that lead to degradation can be transferred
from one place to another, strongly influence the extent to which leakage occurs. This in turn is
influenced by certain community characteristics, such as the extent to which they are sedentary,
as well as the level of poverty and awareness. Leakage can also be market driven. If demand for
certain products (for example, fish or timber) is high, the reduction of resource extraction through
a conservation initiative might lead to increased market prices and thus increased exploitation
elsewhere, even in locations far away from the conservation action. These constraints should be
considered when selecting of project sites where Bio-rights may be implemented. In addition,
the specific design of a Bio-rights intervention might in itself help curb leakage risks. Adjusting
the scale of an initiative can ensure that entire high-value conservation areas are protected,
instead of targeting only minor sections. This significantly reduces local leakage risks. Similarly,
leakage issues can be incorporated into community contracts, for example, by explicitly stating
that certain bans on resource exploitation and environmental degradation also apply to areas
outside project locations (and ensuring that these are enforced). Leakage risks linked to (global)
market demands cannot be so easily mitigated within a single project intervention. Instead,
active advocacy will be required to influence policies, change regulations and raise awareness
among the relevant stakeholders.
Another risk is related to immigration into a project area. If a Bio-rights intervention turns into
a great development success, people’s improved livelihoods can act as a magnet to poor
communities from surrounding areas and lead to renewed pressures on environmental resources,
and further environmental degradation. Local socio-economic conditions such as population
density, poverty levels and, in particular, land ownership are critical determinants of immigration
risks. Project and contract design can help to address this issue by developing strategies with
local communities in the project area to avoid increased human pressure on their land.
Local communities can potentially use their earnings from development initiatives implemented
under Bio-rights for unsustainable practices such as land conversion or overexploitation
of resources. This poses a serious risk for long-term project sustainability, and this needs to
be taken into consideration. One way to mitigate this risk is to make sure that Bio-rights is
embedded in a wider framework of conservation and development activities. By ensuring that
strict law enforcement is in place, illegal activities can be halted. Community-based environmental
resource management structures can ensure the mainstreaming of conservation activities with
local development needs. By placing a strong focus on awareness-raising activities, communities
can be made aware of the implications of unsustainable practices on local livelihoods. Thus, an
optimal balance can be created between top-down enforcement of formal legislation, bottom-up
involvement of local communities in policy development and conservation, and facilitation by
third parties such as development and conservation NGOs. In this wider framework, Bio-rights
is no more than a tool that links community development with conservation and brings various
stakeholders together.

Bio-rights in theory and practice
39
4. Bio-rights in the wider conservation and
development portfolio
This report has often reiterated that Bio-rights is not a stand-alone approach, but one element
within a package of measures required to successfully accomplish conservation and development.
Understanding the process required, the linkages to ongoing activities in the regions and the
options for tailoring Bio-rights to local site conditions is key to successful project implementation.
Those implementing Bio-rights projects are unlikely to be successful unless they appreciate
and understand critical aspects in the wider realm of conservation and development. This
requires expertise in a broad range of fields, extensive experience with on-the-ground project
implementation and eagerness to draw lessons from the past (also see box 8; ‘Learning from
the ICDP experience’). This chapter provides some insight into how Bio-rights fits into the bigger
conservation and sustainable development picture.
4.1 The process
Bio-rights requires more than just an innovative financing approach complemented by capacity
building and awareness raising activities. To optimise success, the approach should be
embedded in a broader context that, among others, considers local policies, national-level
legislation, ownership rights and the organisation of stakeholders.
4.1.1 Linking to policies
Bio-rights initiatives are linked to policy in various ways. To a great extent, policies determine
what can be accomplished by means of Bio-rights. They determine the potential role of local
communities in natural resource management as well as the involvement of other relevant local
stakeholders in project implementation. They also determine the legal boundaries of what kind
of interventions are allowed. Thus, policies either do or do not provide an enabling environment
for Bio-rights projects. On the other hand, Bio-rights can serve as a tool to translate policies
into practice. Operationalisation of policies is considered a major challenge in many countries.
Thus, it is very important for Bio-rights and policy development to take place in parallel with each
other. Bio-rights project developers need to provide input into policy processes, while it should
be ensured that policymakers endorse proposed projects and provide input into their design.
4.1.2 Tenure rights
The securing of tenure rights to land and resources is a critical aspect of Bio-rights implementation.
Although not necessarily a precondition for a successful project (see Chapter 3.1.2), where local
communities have secure land tenure, this can significantly help to accomplish success. Most
importantly, it ensures that local communities have full responsibility for meeting the conservation
requirements stet out in the contractual agreement, which makes it less likely that a third party
will negatively interfere with project success. Tenure rights provision might also increase wise
stewardship of land and resources since communities are more likely to implement long-term
sustainable practices on land that is their own. A risk of granting rights to resources is that long-
term management strategies might be difficult to predict or influence. Assessing - and acting
on - the pros and cons of rights provision should form an integral part of Bio-rights development
and involvement in policy processes.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
40
4.1.3 Law enforcement
Involving communities in natural resource management linked to provision of incentives to
support changes in unsustainable land use practices is just one means of accomplishing
environmental conservation. The opposite approach, strict law enforcement, is also a potentially
powerful tool. The applicability of these approaches depends on local site conditions and
project objectives. Community-based conservation and top down law-enforcement are not
necessarily mutually exclusive. A potentially very powerful approach would be to incentivize local
communities to refrain from unsustainable or illegal resource exploitation by means of Bio-rights,
while simultaneously ensuring strict enforcement of contractual obligations. This can usually
be accomplished by involving government officials - e.g., staff of a government conservation
agency or park authority - or, alternatively, by making community members responsible for the
enforcement of formal regulations. Law-enforcement can also be applied to prevent outsiders
from committing illegal acts in an area in which Bio-rights is implemented.
4.1.4 Organising groups
Communities are usually diverse, consisting of individuals with very different socio-economic
backgrounds, incomes religious beliefs, education levels and professional backgrounds.
Often there is inequality between male and female group members. Limited organisation and
coordination within and between groups often impedes community development and limits a
community’s potential to be involved in local decision making processes. This also is often
a source of conflict. Considering its importance for ensuring successful conservation and
development, group formation and the full support of those with weak voices is an important
process that has to run in advance of and parallel to Bio-rights implementation.
4.2 Aligning to existing approaches
Several approaches that are advocated globally have significant potential for linkage to Bio-
rights. In many cases, Bio-rights can help to meet the challenge of efficiently channelling
financial benefits to local communities to ensure the sustainable use of resources. This section
summarises a number of concrete linkages that could be established.
4.2.1 Tapping into global markets
In recent years, regional, national and international markets have developed for the provision of
a range of ecosystem services. Most of these markets, including those targeted at watershed
services and biodiversity conservation, remain small scale and in early stages of development.
Others, including, for example, the carbon market, have become comparatively well established
and are rapidly expanding. Most interesting in this respect are the discussions on establishing
a system for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Land Degradation (REDD). While
activities targeted at reducing deforestation occur on a small scale through the voluntary carbon
market, a multibillion market might emerge if REDD is incorporated into post-2012 compliance
markets.
A major challenge for these markets is to ensure that financial resources are optimally used to
accomplish the desired conservation objectives while ensuring that payments are provided to
the right stakeholders. For REDD, for example, it would be desirable to ensure that financial
resources are provided to communities and park managers, who bear direct responsibility for
forest conservation, rather than ending up in the pockets of corrupt government officials. Bio-
rights could potentially serve as a very powerful tool to make REDD and other global payment

Bio-rights in theory and practice
41
schemes operational. The approach allows for effective channelling of funding to the ground
level, while avoiding bureaucratic hurdles and ensuring sound community involvement in
decision making. Adopting a Bio-rights approach, rather than sticking to largely funding-based
approaches such as Payments for Environmental Services (PES), would incorporate a strong
emphasis on awareness raising and on-the-ground training of local community groups and
NGOs. This will likely significantly enhance the sustainability of investments. While the payments
address possible trade-offs between conservation and development, the focus on training and
awareness raising will create long-term understanding of the importance of sound environmental
management among local people.
4.2.2 Community-based Natural Resource Management (CB-NRM)
Worldwide, efforts are being made to ensure greater involvement of local communities in the
development and implementation of policies for the management of natural resources in their
surroundings. This is considered desirable from an ethical perspective, but also to ensure that
policies are adequately transferred from paper into practice. Over the years, various institutions
gained experience with involving local communities in the process of consultation and policy
development. Translating these policies into practice, with the sustained involvement of local
communities, however, has so far lagged behind. Assuming availability of funding, Bio-rights
could serve as a promising means to implement policy plans and shape local perceptions to
favor sustainability.
Global markets for ecosystem services are rapidly developing, such as REDD schemes for
avoided carbon emissions. Photo: Wim Giesen.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
42
4.2.3 Community-based savings schemes
Oxfam and several other development organisations have made significant investments
to establish community-based savings schemes in which local community groups use
their own income to generate savings to fund development activities. These projects
focus on establishing groups, building capacity for managing financial resources and
implementing development initiatives. The skills built through these schemes - such as skills
in the distribution of tasks, taking independent action and designing development plans, for
example - could greatly contribute to success for Bio-rights implementation. Meanwhile,
payments provided for conservation and restoration activities could significantly augment the
savings process. Savings schemes and Bio-rights could be implemented in parallel to each
other, or consecutively, starting with a savings scheme (to build relevant capacity) followed by a
Bio-rights intervention.
4.2.3 Ecotourism
Many park managers allocate a certain fraction of the revenue from tourism for communities
living in or around a protected area. Often such payments are provided in cash. In some cases
this may result in payments being used in a socially, economically or ecologically unsustainable
manner, for example to purchase materials (such as chainsaws, fishing nets, etc.) that enable
overexploitation of natural resources. By disbursing community payments as part of a Bio-rights
deal, such risks could be significantly mitigated. Park managers and local communities would be
able to agree on sustainability criteria, while creating a platform that enables local communities
to be involved the management of their surroundings. This allows park management to be
better adjusted to local aspirations and needs, and enables conflict resolution. Thus Bio-rights
could help to transform the relationship between park management and local communities from
being strictly financial to a more durable cooperative relationship that allows for participative
management of protected areas.
4.2.4 Labelling
Demand for products with sustainability labels is on the rise. In recent years such labels have
developed for a range of goods including timber, fish, palm oil and coffee. To ensure compliance
with labelling requirements, production chains often require considerable reform of a large
number of social and environmental aspects. In cases where local communities are involved in
the use or cultivation of a certain product, Bio-rights might be well suited to guide this process.
The revenue from sales of labelled products can be passed on to local communities by means
of Bio-rights to cover the costs of modifying production processes and sustaining new ways of
working. Likewise, the approach can help to accomplish the high level of organisation and skills
usually required to fulfill labelling requirements.
4.3 Adapting Bio-rights
The typical Bio-rights approach as highlighted in this report consists of a several-year contract,
followed by micro-credit conversion and, in some cases, the subsequent establishment of a
community-based revolving fund. Obviously, under certain conditions a slightly modified funding
structure might be desirable. Below, two alternative approaches are described: the PES-type
approach and the micro-credit approach.

Bio-rights in theory and practice
43
4.3.1 The PES-approach
Bio-rights is most commonly presented as a mechanism that helps local communities escape
from the poverty trap. This is based on the assumption that a sustainable balance between
conservation and development can be accomplished through the temporary provision of
funding. Field pilots have demonstrated that in many cases it is indeed possible to trigger such
a transition. However, this is by no means always true. Sometimes the most attractive option
will still be to convert an intact natural area into intensive agriculture, no matter what changes
in land use practices are established. In other cases, trade-offs between conservation and
development will place strong pressure on a project’s outcome. In this case, temporary funding
will be insufficient to ensure long-term sustainability. Rather, there is a need for continuous
compensation for the opportunity costs lost because of a conservation measure. A Bio-rights
project can accommodate this by developing a renewable contract system. Instead of a one-
term contract, new contracts should be offered to the respective groups to provide continuity
when a Bio-rights deal expires. Obviously this is only possible if long-term project funding is
available. In this way a system similar to Payments for Environmental Services is established,
while the key characteristics of Bio-rights (convertible micro-credits and a focus on training and
awareness raising) are maintained.
4.3.2 The micro-credit approach
For many communities in rural areas it is very difficult to gain access to micro-credit schemes.
This is because of the perceived risk among lending institutions regarding lending to the poorest
of the poor. High poverty, vulnerability to extreme events and low education levels are all
factors that make micro-credit institutions disinclined to lend to these groups. Meanwhile, poor
communities in rural areas do have an instrumental role to play in sustainable natural resource
management. An alternative means of Bio-rights implementation might be to bring together the
need for these communities’ involvement in environmental conservation and the their needs for
micro-credits. This can be accomplished if the Bio-rights project covers the risk of lending money
to vulnerable communities in target areas, a risk normally born by the micro-credit institutions. In
other words, a given Bio-rights project could offer communities access to micro-credits in return
for their involvement in certain conservation or restoration actions. In theory, this approach could
serve as a cost-effective means of accomplishing significant conservation objectives, as there is
no need to convert the credits into definitive payments upon termination of a contractual period.
The only costs relate to management of the project, administration of the micro-credits and
covering unexpected loss of capital in case community members are not able to repay loans.
Obviously the applicability of this approach depends largely on the local need for micro-credits
and the willingness to undertake conservation efforts in return for access to lending.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
44
5. Bio-rights in relation to other financial
mechanisms for conservation and
development
This chapter provides an analysis of Bio-rights in the overall perspective of other financial
mechanisms used in the conservation and the development sectors. Three mechanisms
are reviewed: i) Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs), ii) Payments for
Ecosystem Services (PES) mechanisms and iii) micro-finance schemes. The first part of the
chapter describes the overall rationale behind conservation finance approaches and presents a
brief overview of three financing mechanisms and lessons learned during their implementation.
The second part of the chapter describes how Bio-rights relates to these mechanisms. It
provides an overview of the applicability of Bio-rights to other instruments and describes what
can be learned from practical field experiences with the different financing mechanisms to ensure
successful Bio-rights implementation.
5.1 The basis for use of financing mechanisms
The fact that ecosystem services form the basis of human wellbeing is well expounded in
literature and practice. And yet in 2005 the World Resources Institute’s Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment revealed that more than two thirds of global ecosystem services were in decline and
that the “benefits reaped from our engineering of the planet have been achieved by running down
on natural capital” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Efforts to reverse these trends
have been equally daunting. As one estimate puts it, as much as US$ 20 billion is raised from
public finance and private philanthropy for global conservation activities - much of the money
being used to maintain over 100,000 protected areas covering 12% of the world’s land surface
(Bishop et al., 2008). Ironically, as economies grow, ecosystems continue to degrade, posing
an immense challenge for policy and decision making in both conservation and development
sectors.
The linkage between ecosystem services and human wellbeing forms the basis for an economic
perspective on environmental policy. Based on the values1 people hold for their environment,
important repercussions for ecosystem services could be achieved just by making the link
between the economy and environment more explicit. Markets serve as the key economic
institutions to ensure resource allocation through the invisible hands of demand and supply.
However, markets fail to emerge for most of the ecosystem services primarily as they acquire
the nature of positive externalities or public goods2 (Cornes & Sandler, 1996). This could form
the central justification for government intervention making the public sector responsible for the
provision of the ecosystem services. However, governments have their own failings, in terms
1 Value is defined by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) as the “contribution of an action or object
to user specified goals, objectives or conditions”. The value of ecosystems can be interpreted differently within
the perspectives of economic, ecological and sociological sciences. While the economic perspective stresses
the exchange value of these services, the ecological focus is on the importance of the ecosystem in maintaining
ecosystem health and resilience in order to provide the services (Bingham et al., 1995) and sociologists emphasise
measures of moral assessments as part of value (Barry & Oelschlaeger, 1995).

Bio-rights in theory and practice
45
of inefficient bureaucracies, misaligned incentives, imperfect knowledge and rent seeking. This
then calls for market-based approaches that aim to alter the incentives facing the providers of
ecosystem services. Experience has shown that well designed market-based instruments can
achieve environmental goals at less cost than conventional “command and control” approaches,
while creating positive incentives for continual innovation and improvement (Stavins, 2000). This is
where the genesis of financing mechanisms as a part of the policy mix should be understood.
Increased emphasis on financing mechanisms within conservation and development sectors is a
part of the policy shift that recognizes the success of markets to induce changes in individual and
institutional behaviour in a cost effective manner. Various multilateral conservation agreements,
for example, recognise incentive systems as potentially powerful policy tools. Article 11 of the
Convention on Biological Diversity calls on parties to “as far as possible and as appropriate,
adopt economically and socially sound measures that act as incentives for the conservation
and sustainable use of components of biological diversity”. Similar emphasis is present in the
decisions of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, Convention on Desertification and others.
Also, national and regional policies increasingly consider incentive instruments as a tool to
improve conservation effectiveness.
However, recent developments in institutional economics have challenged the long held
perception that markets are an optimal resource allocation mechanism, and instead place
markets within a multitude of institutional arrangements and hierarchies that guide decision
making and resource allocation (North, 1990; Williamson, 1985; Stiglitz, 1986). Thus, market-
based financial systems should not be assumed as to be “silver bullets” that will fix all the
problems of environmental degradation; instead they should be seen as part of a range of
While certain ecosystem services, such as fish (l), have a distinct monetary value, other services
- such as protection against storms (r) - have not been internalised into formal markets. Photos:
Pieter van Eijk
2 A good is public to varying degrees, depending on the extent to which it exhibits rivalry and excludability
characteristics. When a good is non-rivalrous, one person’s use is not affected by the other person’s use. So the
supply of the good cannot be controlled and therefore the willingness to produce it decreases. When a good is
non-excludable, it implies that there is no means of preventing people from using it, creating a problem of supply
and therefore its under provision. These characteristics lead to market failure because markets, by themselves,
are unable to provide the optimal level of good. When non-excludability and non-rivalry exist, they undermine
the formation of markets since beneficiaries of the goods or services have no incentive to pay the suppliers, and
eventually everyone wishes to “free ride”.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
46
conservation-development options available to the decision maker and policy planner. This
reference position is critical to rationally appreciate the role of financial mechanisms in the overall
conservation-development debate.
The overall economic benefit arising from conservation of a particular ecosystem is presented by the
bar on the extreme left. Bars A and B show the income derived by people living in and close to the
ecosystem (A) and further away (B). This recognises that benefits are distributed unevenly from place
to place. For example, in the case of a wetland ecosystem, the local benefits (A) could be availability
of drinking water, fisheries, and valuable plants, while people living further away would benefit from
flood mitigation, sediment retention and other regulatory services (B). The local user may then see a
potential source of income (C) from ecosystem conversion - say, draining the wetland for agriculture
and residential purposes. Even though the overall economic benefit from the converted ecosystem (C)
is less than the overall benefit before conversion (A+B), the local user faces an opportunity cost in terms
of lost benefits if he or she chooses not to convert the land, represented by the difference between
bars A and C. To a rational local user, a payment of this difference constitutes a minimum incentive
to maintain the ecosystem. A rational downstream user, can pay an amount equivalent to the income
stream at stake if the land is converted (B). This induces the ex-situ user and an ecosystem service
buyer to enter into a contract for continued provision of the services, by providing a payment (E) to to
the local person or ecosystem services provider. The total income stream to the ecosystem services
provider (bar D plus E) thus is more than that of a converted ecosystem (C), making conservation viable.
The system thus internalizes what would otherwise be an externality (Pagiola and Platais, 2007).
Figure 6. The logic of Payment for Ecosystem Services. Adapted from: Pagiola and Platais, 2007.
TOTAL BENEFIT
FROM
ECOSYSTEM
CONSERVATION
PAYMENT FOR
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
FROM THE
DOWNSTREAM USER TO
THE SERVICE PROVIDER
IN SITU BENEFIT
TO THE
ECOSYSTEM
SERVICE
PROVIDER AFTER
RECEIVING PES
IN SITU BENEFIT
FROM
CONVERTED
ECOSYSTEMS
NET OPPORTUNITY
COST LOSS TO
DOWNSTREAM
ECOSYSTEM
SERVICES USER -
MAXIMUM PAYMENT
FOR CONTINUED
CONSERVATION
NET OPPORTUNITY COST LOSS TO IN-SITU
USER-MINIMUM PAYMENT REQUIRED TO CONTINUAE
CONSERVATION
IN SITU BENEFIT
FROM
ECOSYSTEM
CONSERVATION
BENEFITS FROM
ECOSYSTEM
SERVICES TO
DOWNSTREAM
AND OTHER
USERS
A
B
C
D
E
Box 4. The logic of Payments for Ecosystem services

Bio-rights in theory and practice
47
5.2 Financing mechanisms within the Conservation - Development Sector
Three financing approaches have been identified as particularly closely linked to Bio-rights in
terms of their objectives and approaches: i) Integrated Conservation and Development Projects
(ICDPs), ii) Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) mechanisms, and iii) microfinance schemes.
Their characteristics and implementation experiences are described in more detail below.
5.2.1 Integrated Conservation and Development Projects
The emergence of ICDPs in the 1980s was a response to the increased recognition of the
interconnectedness of community livelihoods and biodiversity, and therefore the ineffectiveness
of conservation initiatives that did not have the effective participation of local communities ICDP
has been defined as “an approach to management and conservation of natural resources in
areas of significant biodiversity value that aims to reconcile the biodiversity conservation and
socio-economic development interests of multiple stakeholders at local, regional, national and
international levels” (Franks et al., 2004). The attractiveness of ICDPs lies in their potential to
contribute to three core objectives of the sustainable development agenda: more effective
biodiversity conservation, increased local community participation in conservation and
development, and economic development for the rural poor (Wells et al., 2004).
Typically, an ICDP involves assistance to ventures that yield commercial output and ecosystem
protection as joint products (Ferraro & Simpson, 2003). Project activities include providing
rural communities with alternatives to environmentally damaging activities, creating livelihood
opportunities through environmentally benign activities such as ecotourism, micro-enterprise
development based on adding value to natural products and, more recently, investments in
rural infrastructure to improve quality of life. Programme design is based on the logic that, if
faced with higher prices for their eco-friendly products, or cheaper inputs, individuals would
demand greater areas of intact ecosystems, thereby indirectly protecting ecosystems and their
constituent services (Ibid, 2003).
The evidence, however, indicates that ICDPs have failed to meet expectations in terms of
conservation and development outcomes (for example, refer to Stocking & Perkins, 1992;
Barrett & Arcese, 1995; Sanjayan et al., 1997; Brown, 1998). A review of implementations by
Wells & McShane (2004) indicates the following reasons:
Projects are implemented with insufficient time, funds and scale to be able to address the •
behaviour that damages biodiversity;
Assumptions that biodiversity conservation and livelihoods will always go hand-in-hand fail •
to address the tradeoffs involved due to the interests and claims of multiple stakeholders;
Projects have an inappropriate focus on the activities of local people, with limited influence •
over large-scale developmental activities that have the potential to trigger large-scale habitat
degradation;
There is limited stakeholder engagement;•
There is disproportionate emphasis on detailed planning at the expense of •
implementation;
Projects focus on activities rather than impacts.•
The body of literature on ICDPs points out that, while the concept of integrating conservation
and development goals remains valid, it is the implementation that has failed in several respects.
Therefore, future ICDP-related interventions need to be developed with greater adaptability, with

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
48
tangible conservation targets, and with partnerships that are able to address issues at multiple
scales.
5.2.2 Payment for Ecosystem Services
PES has attracted increasing interest as a mechanism for translating the external, non-market
values of the environment into real financial incentives for local actors to provide services (Engel
et al., 2008). Recently, there have been increasing attempts to define rigid characteristics for
PES, including the following definition proposed by Wunder (2005):
PES is a voluntary transaction where:a.
a well defined environmental service (or a land use likely to secure the service)b.
is being c. ‘bought’ by a (minimum of one) service buyer
from a (minimum of one) service providerd.
if and only if the service provider secures service provision (conditionality).e.
The logic of PES is shown in Box 4.
PES has been applied in a wide range of circumstances. Ravnborg et al. (2007) identify 167
PES cases based on hydrological services, biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration and
landscape beauty. Landel-Mills & Porras (2002), in their global review, mention 287 cases of the
application of PES. However, Wunder (2008) emphasises that there are no more than a couple
of dozen cases that satisfy all the five criteria suggested in the definition.
The range of ecosystem services vary from specific services to ‘bundled-up’ situations, wherein
a particular service renders more than one ecosystem service. The Los Negros scheme in Bolivia
focuses on watershed and biodiversity protection wherein the Pampagranade Municipality pays
Santa Rosa farmers for forest and páramo (a neotropical wetland type) conservation (Asquith et
al., 2008). Vittel, a France-based water company pays the dairy farmers in a spring catchment to
maintain a form of land use that enables sustained supply of high quality mineral water (Perrot-
Maître, 2006). The Government of China initiated the Sloping Land Conversion Programme
focussing on watershed protection, wherein the central government pays rural households to
take cropland out of production and for afforestation (Bennet, 2008).
While PES schemes can be distinguished from each other in various ways, a useful basis is to
delineate PES programmes that are user-financed (in which service buyers are the actual service
users) and those that are government-financed (wherein government buys the service on behalf
of the end users). User-financed programmes are voluntary for the seller as well as the buyer,
whereas government-financed programmes are mostly voluntary only on the provider side
(Engels et al., 2008). Government-financed programmes are generally larger scale, for example
the Sloping Land Conservation Programme covers 12 million hectares (Bennet, 2008). Bulte et
al. (2008) propose a functional classification of PES schemes separating programmes that pay
for pollution control, conservation of natural resources and ecosystems from those aimed at
general or public good environmental amenities.
Despite an overwhelming emphasis on PES, there have been relatively few attempts to assess
their effectiveness and efficiency. Two recent attempts - Wunder et al. (2008) based on a review
of 14 case studies and Bulte et al. (2008) based on 10 cases - have the following insights to offer
on various aspects of PES implementation:

Bio-rights in theory and practice
49
Impacts on environmental service generation:• PES programs in general have a high rate
of attracting potential providers of ecosystem services. However, payments are rarely tied
to measured units, but to proxies. There is very limited evidence of additional conservation
benefits created by the PES projects, though this can be attributed to lack of monitoring
design. Many questions have also been asked about the permanence of the benefits of
PES programmes, particularly after the payments stop coming. Absence of an adequate
monitoring framework has also limited measurement of the extent of leakage. There has
also been evidence of the generation of perverse incentives due to implementation of PES
programmes (Tattenbach et al., 2006).
Distributional impacts:• Conceptually, PES programmes were not intended to be an
instrument for poverty alleviation, but for natural resource management. It is often assumed
that ecosystem services are derived from areas with a predominantly poor population, or
that have a relatively higher incidence of poverty. This remains an untested hypothesis to
date. In an analysis of highland Guatemala, Pagiola et al. (2007) do not find any correlation
between ecosystem services provision and incidence of poverty. In most of the cases that
are said to have attempted to integrate poverty alleviation goals, these were not the major
policy objectives but add-ons introduced due to political pressure or to ensure greater
acceptability. In terms of implementation, there has been hardly any complementarity
between the objectives, but instead the poverty reduction objective has competed with the
overall objective of ecosystem services provision.
Available evidence on the participation of poor people in PES programmes has been mixed.
Cases from Costa Rica have a bias in terms of participation from well-off households, whereas
others have a greater proportion of poor people involved. However, key factors that influence
households’ decisions to participate in PES programme include i) factors that affect eligibility to
participate; ii) factors that affect desire to participate; iii) factors that affect ability to participate;
and iv) competitiveness in terms of transaction costs. Some of the key conclusions that emerge
are:
In cases of user-financed programmes, poor service providers were able to access the •
programme and become ecosystem services sellers. This happened in spite of the fact that
none of the programmes had intentionally used poverty targeting mechanisms. These results
are also consistent, to a large degree, with the government-financed PES schemes.
Transaction costs are likely to be a much greater obstacle for poor households than their •
own limitations. High transaction costs associated with dealing with many small-scale
ecosystem service providers as opposed to few large-scale providers work against the
poor. Thus, the participation of the poor may require shifting (part of) the unavoidable
transaction costs from the buyers to the sellers and investigating options such as registering
communities as groups.
The extent to which poor people actually benefit from participation in PES programmes is •
very poorly documented. As long as participation is voluntary, there is a presumption that
the participants were at least not worse off than in a situation without PES. In the case of
non-voluntary participation such presumptions cannot be made.
There is little evidence that large benefits result from implementation of PES programmes. •
PES probably delivers small gains over the opportunity costs. However, even small pecuniary
gains could be significant when people have limited opportunities for supplementing their
incomes. In several situations, non-pecuniary gains could also be anticipated, with relatively
higher societal impacts. In Kalimantan for example, PES has induced more secure property
rights. In Costa Rica and Bolivia, PES contracts helped increase tenure security.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
50
In general, the two reviews conclude that poverty alleviation objectives within PES may come
at a cost to achieving environmental objectives, and in most situations be counter-productive
to the overall success of the scheme, undermining the basis for a quid pro quo deal between
service users and service providers. Poverty cannot be used as a fundamental criterion for
service provision; instead, the focus is on the ability to provide the service. An increased focus
on poverty is likely to increase programme costs and makeexternal financial necessary.
5.2.3 Micro-nance3
Unlike the above two instruments, micro-finance has an upfront focus on poverty. Poverty is
conventionally interpreted as a lack of access to the assets necessary for a higher standard of
income or welfare, such assets could include be (e.g., access to education, safe drinking water
and sanitation), natural (e.g., access to land, forests, wetland services), physical (infrastructure),
social (networks) or financial (credit, banking, etc.). Lack of access to credit is explained by the
absence of collateral that the poor can provide, forcing them to rely on moneylenders, who
often charge very high interest rates, forcing people further into poverty. Micro-finance aims to
help people escape this spiral through a wide variety of innovative measures, such as group
lending, regular saving schemes, establishment of close linkages between poor clients and
credit institutions and the like. Micro-finance as a tool for poverty alleviation works on separate
premises for different categories of the poor4. For the destitute, enhancing access to credit
enables people to finance production activities that allow income growth. For the transitory poor,
micro-finance provides an opportunity for ‘consumption levelling’ by providing credit in times of
need or even generating savings opportunities. Thus, micro-finance becomes an important tool
for poverty alleviation.
Though micro-finance has a long history, dating back to a seventeenth-century Irish bank,
modern micro-finance has its roots in Bangladesh in the 1970s. Muhammad Yunus’ experimental
research into providing credit to the poor led to the establishment of the world-famous micro-
finance institution, the Grameen Bank. In Bolivia, Banco-Sol was developed to address the
needs of the urban poor in the informal sector. In recent times, there is an increasing trend of
conventional banks expanding their operations to include micro-finance. Bank Dangang Bali
(Indonesia), ICICI Bank (India) and Banco del Dessarrollo (Chile) are among several to have
included micro-finance within their core business strategies.
Unlike the two other instruments, micro-finance has been subject to some rigorous effectiveness
assessments. Hume & Mosley (1996) in their assessment covering Indonesia, India and
Bangladesh, observed an increase in incomes of borrowers, with a relatively higher growth for
the relatively better off. MkNelly et al. (1996) records positive benefits in Thai villages. Khandekar
(1998) and Pitt & Khandekar (1998) in an assessment of Grameen Bank, report reduced poverty
within the micro-finance targeted villages, an increase in consumption and changes in attitudes.
Chen & Snodgrass (2001) have recorded an increase in average income of the participants
of India’s SEWA Bank micro-finance programmes. However, not all the studies conclude
3 Micro-finance and micro-credit are often used interchangeably, but essentially have different meanings. Micro-
credit refers to a small loan made to a low-income person, often without collateral. Micro-finance refers to a whole
range of financial services, including loans, saving, insurance and other products.
4 Poverty has its own heterogeneity (Montgomery & Weiss, 2005). Broadly, we can distinguish between long-term
or ‘chronic poor’ and those who fall into poverty as a result of adverse shocks (transitory poor). Within the chronic
poor, one group is those who are so physically and socially disadvantaged that they would remain poor without
welfare support (destitute category); another is those who are poor because of lack of access to assets and
opportunities. Furthermore, within the non-destitute category, we can distinguish in terms of depth of poverty, i.e.,
the distance from the poverty line. People significantly below the poverty line form the ‘core poor’.

Bio-rights in theory and practice
51
that micro-finance is able to reach the core poor. Amin et al. (2003) in their assessment of
Bangladesh’s Grameen Bank, BRAC and ASA observe that the programmes are successful at
reaching the poor but the vulnerable poor are effectively excluded from membership. Coleman
(2004) in assessing village banks in Thailand reports that the programmes reach relatively
wealthier communities rather than the poor. Duong & Izumida (2002) in their study of Vietnam
indicate that the poor have difficulties in accessing credit facilities. MkNelly & Dunford (1999) in
their assessments from Bolivia observe no evidence of improved household food security or
nutritional status due to micro-finance programmes. In general, in terms of cost effectiveness,
there is evidence of high transaction costs involved in the design and implementation of micro-
credit programmes (Montgomery & Weiss, 2005).
5.3 Bio-rights in comparison to ICDPs, PES and micro-finance
5.3.1 Overall similarities and differences
Bio-rights as a financing mechanism bears a high degree of similarity to the three mechanisms
described in the previous section. It has joint conservation-development objectives as in ICDPs.
It is an attempt to create an ecosystem service market as in PES. And lastly, it is a micro-finance
based incentive mechanism. Despite these commonalities, Bio-rights has a number of distinct
features:
Conservation targeting:• Bio-rights attempts to make conservation a viable option by linking
it to an incentive in the form of micro-finance. However, unlike PES, the conservation action
does not necessarily need to have a utilitarian basis in the form of a service provider and
a buyer. Since the incentive funds in some cases are sourced from a third party, i.e., the
donor, a decoupling of the demand and supply chain becomes possible at least in the short
to medium term. This widens the range of circumstances under which Bio-rights might be
applicable; for example, in the case of a forest regeneration scheme, there would not need
to be a downstream community benefitting from watershed functions.
Poverty targeting:• Bio-rights provides the flexibility to integrate poverty targeting, similar to
micro-finance and, to a limited degree, ICDPs. Being micro-finance based, the application
of Bio-rights is driven to areas where there is a demand for credit. People in these areas
do often have no access to regular micro-credit schemes. Also, this is unlike PES, wherein
the focus is on ecosystem service provision, and there is limited evidence of an overlap
between poverty incidence and ecosystem services generation.
Conditionality:• Bio-rights finance is conditional on the achievement of a certain conservation
target. Other conditions could be introduced to ensure the socio-economic and environmental
sustainability of enterprises supported through micro-finance. Weak conditionality has often
been identified as one of weaknesses of ICDPs, wherein incentives are delivered upfront on
the premise that they will create demand for conservation. However, there is a high degree
of likelihood that livelihood activities will continue to put pressure on natural resources or, in
the worst situations be completely de-linked from the main conservation objective. Thus,
the introduction of conditionality, both environmental as well as socio-economic, within Bio-
rights improves implementation targeting.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
52
5.3.2 Which mechanism to choose?
No generalisations can be made as to which approach is most suitable for accomplishing
conservation and sustainable development in a given situation. Selection of an appropriate
mechanism largely depends on the professional judgement of the project implementer, based
on local site conditions, investor requirements, community perceptions and specific project
objectives. Obviously, personal experiences and familiarity with different conservation and
development approaches also play an important role. Moreover, it is important to realise that all
of the above mechanisms can be implemented in a flexible manner, and have certain elements
in common. This makes it difficult to classify the approaches as being entirely ‘different’ and
to consider one approach applicable while completely rejecting another. Rather, judgment is
needed as to which elements are required for successful project implementation under given
site conditions. This is likely to result in a combination of several financing and non-financing
approaches that will jointly deliver optimal success. The financing mechanisms described in this
chapter should therefore not be considered as the whole solution to a problem, but instead as
among a range of tools required.
5.4 Lessons learnt and emerging best practice
The review of the literature on financing mechanisms reveals some important lessons, which
need to be considered and incorporated into the implementation of Bio-rights projects:
Management of transaction costs: Within any scheme, transaction costs occur primarily to
address the information needs and logistical requirements of programme implementation.
Typically, a PES programme has transaction costs in the form of opportunity costs of forgone
benefits; implementation costs of making and maintaining land use changes; and costs of
programme development and implementation, including capacity building, monitoring and
evaluation. Transaction costs for a micro-credit scheme involve time costs to the poor for
participation in group meetings costs of skill upgrading, maintenance of offices where applicable
and other costs. A Bio-rights programme would face higher transaction costs than a micro-credit
programme as it would also involve monitoring of conservation impacts. Inadequate coverage
of the transaction costs has been identified as a potential deterrent to active participation in
conservation-development programmes.
Key challenges for a project manager in relation to transaction costs are to ensure: i) that they
are fully accounted for; ii) that they are covered and iii) that they are kept as low as possible.
The third element deserves special attention because of Bio-rights’ upfront focus on poverty
alleviation. Some of the specific means for reducing transaction costs are collective contracting
and investing in local capacities for the devolution and decentralization of core management
operations.
Mitigation of leakage:• Leakages refer to situations where environmentally damaging activities
are merely displaced rather than reduced. At a local level, this would mean that degrading
activities are shifted outside the project area. At a broader level, restrictions on land use can
lead to degradation elsewhere, for example, preventing conversion of forests to cropland
at a wetland basin scale leads to increase in food prices, enhancing potential returns from
forest clearing in other areas. Leakages are most likely to take place when the size of the
intervention is sub-optimal in scale compared to the problem being addressed: for example,
if the Bio-rights project is designed to address the unsustainable harvest of fish from a
particular wetland, but covers only part of the wetland or some of the fisher communities.

Bio-rights in theory and practice
53
In principle, controlling leakage at multiple scales is practically impossible. However, at
local scales, the scope of the project should be comprehensive enough to address the root
cause of resource degradation.
Stakeholder targeting and participation:• Effective stakeholder targeting and participation are
crucial for the success of any conservation - development intervention. Historically, insufficient
stakeholder engagement has been identified as one of the major reasons for ICDP failure. In
PES programmes, stakeholder participation has been relatively more successful. Some of
the key factors that have determined stakeholder participation in these programmes have
been eligibility, desire, ability and competitiveness (Wunder et al., 2008). It is noteworthy that
conditions on eligibility and ability most often reduce inclusion of the poor as stakeholders.
‘Ability’ specifically links the design to resource use and asset tenureship. Thus the poor
with no access to land are directly excluded from the design when the ability to change
land use becomes a criterion for inclusion in a programme. Successful implementation of
Bio-rights therefore should be based on a detailed mapping of stakeholders and resource
linkages, ensuring their effective participation. This could also be used to determine the
overall scale of the programme, the most effective being the one in which all or most of the
stakeholders are included and able to benefit.
Visible additionality:• One of the key challenges of the ecosystem linked financial mechanism
remains the visibility of results. ‘Additionality’ here refers to the change over the baseline
condition brought about by the initiative. Bio-rights projects need to create visible impacts
in at least two contexts: ecological and socioeconomic. Most of the conservation-
development projects suffer from ‘missing baselines’, making it difficult to establish the
degree of change created by the project. In PES projects, it has been common to link
conservation additionality to proxies, rather than to a specific ecosystem condition, function
or process. Thus, improved protection downstream is assumed to have occurred when the
number of trees has increased, rather than when measurable changes in hydrography have
occurred. The case has been similar with ICDPs. Absence of visible results not only reduces
the attractiveness of the programme, it might also create problems in securing additional
or complimentary resources for the overall programme. Successful implementation of
Bio-rights, therefore, mandates design and implementation of a rigorous monitoring
and evaluation programme that creates a baseline before the project, and also provides
opportunities for mid-term adaptation and lesson learning. Investing in local capabilities
for monitoring and evaluation also has additional benefits in terms of reduced transaction
costs.
Avoid creating perverse incentives:• Weak project planning can actually create perverse
incentives that increase resource degradation rather than the reverse. This has happened
on several occasions. For example, if logging becomes the primary criterion for selecting
participants for an incentive programme, there is a possibility of increased logging to seek
membership to the scheme. There is sporadic evidence of such incidents in practice (for
example see Tattenbach et al., 2006). Mechanisms to address such situations have to
be location- and case-specific. They range from careful contract design to a sequence
of incentive systems based on market chains, and at times even creation of avenues for
regulatory systems to operate.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
54
In conclusion, a review of implementation experiences indicates that achieving conservation
and development outcomes through Bio-rights implementation implicitly involves the integration
of several elements. The first and fundamental premise is that degradation drivers must be
addressed at multiple scales among a multitude of stakeholders and conflicting interests. An
important element for programme success is to link conservation objectives to relatively tangible
conservation benefit flows. Adequate care is required to address leakage, perverse incentives,
and social and financial inefficiencies. Emphasis on comprehensive monitoring strategies would
help to assess the degree of additionality created through programme implementation. Keeping
transaction costs low is another challenge, which could be addressed by innovative approaches
such as group-level contracting. A fundamental investment would be to create Bio-rights as a
process rather than as projects in order to generate the necessary scale and amplitude required
to achieve conservation - development outcomes.

Bio-rights in theory and practice
55

Part II. Manual for implementers
Bio-rights group performing post-tsunami mangrove
rehabilitation works in Aceh, Indonesia.
Photo: Jane Madgwick.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
58

Bio-rights in theory and practice
59
6. Implementing Bio-rights
5 E.g. by submitting case experiences to www.wetlands.org.
6.1 Introduction
This section describes how Bio-rights can be implemented in the field. It provides a practical
step-by-step description to help conservation and development practitioners get started
with the approach. The approach is described based on the five major elements of project
implementation, i.e., i) project initiation, ii) project development, iii) contract negotiation, iv)
practical implementation and v) project monitoring and evaluation. Within these five major
steps, more than 20 individual sub-sections provide detailed guidance on specific aspects of
the implementation process. The different implementation steps are described in chronological
order. Some steps can, if site conditions allow, be implemented in parallel to each other, to
increase efficiency and speed up the - sometimes lengthy - process of project initiation and
development. A summary of the different implementation steps is provided in Annex 5.
The steps described in this chapter provide general guidance to project implementers. All key
factors for success, which have emerged after nearly a decade of piloting the approach, have
been included. It is strongly recommended to take these into account when implementing
the mechanism. On the other hand, one should also realise that the specific socio-economic
and environmental issues in individual locations do require a tailored, site-specific approach.
Therefore implementers are recommended to adapt the mechanism as much as possible to
local site conditions. This should be done in advance of the project, but also during project
implementation to accommodate unexpected developments. In addition, it is important to
realise that Bio-rights is unlikely to be successful by itself. Rather, it should be part of a larger
framework of conservation and development activities, and preferably also be aligned with
regional policies and plans (see chapter 4). Our objective is to share the approach with as
many relevant stakeholders as possible in civil society, governments and the private sector.
The approach and its name are therefore free for everyone to use, provided that the approach’s
key characteristics are respected. This is to ensure that future communications on Bio-rights
relate to the specific framework described in this report, rather than Bio-rights becoming a
general term for a wider family of mechanisms related to Payments for Environmental Services
(PES). Future Bio-rights implementers are invited to share their experiences and findings with the
authors of this paper as well as with a wider audience through the web-based dissemination of
experiences and lessons learned5.
The practical implementation steps mentioned below are described from the perspective of an
NGO or government body in the role of the Bio-rights Project Manager. Some of these steps are
implemented by the Bio-rights Manager, others are delegated to the Local Programme Manager
who is responsible for day-to-day Bio-rights implementation. Obviously, other stakeholders,
such as the corporate sector or community groups themselves, can also take the initiative
to initiate Bio-rights. Although this might slightly change the roles of different stakeholders in
the implementation process, this does not affect the different steps needed for successful
implementation that are identified in this chapter.
The division of roles performed within the implementation process by the Bio-rights Manager
and the Local Programme Manager is described in Annex 5. It should be noted that exact roles
and responsibilities depend on the specific experiences of the organisations involved, and that

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
60
no generalisations can be made about who is responsible for each specific action. A Local
Programme Manager with limited project evaluation experience, for example, should not be
made responsible for project monitoring, but rather undertake this jointly with the Bio-rights
Manager. Similarly, if the Bio-rights Manager has a limited local network, it might be better to
leave stakeholder engagement to the Local Programme Manager. No matter how tasks are
distributed, it is of the utmost importance to ensure that the Bio-rights Manager and the Local
Programme Manager have sound communication skills. They will need to share details on
project developments, unexpected problems and support needs, as well as ensure full clarity on
the exact responsibilities of each partner involved.
6.2 Step 1. Project initiation
Step 1A. Concept development and assessment of appropriate approach
Each project starts with the development of an overall concept plan. Such a concept can be
developed by the implementing organisation itself, based on internal needs, or alternatively it can
be developed at the request of a third party, such as a private sector or government stakeholder.
One of the first steps in developing a concept idea is to identify appropriate approaches for
project implementation. In the context of this report, the main question to be answered is
whether Bio-rights is an appropriate mechanism for accomplishing the anticipated conservation
and development objectives. If so, the ways in which Bio-rights might be incorporated into other
planned or ongoing approaches should be identified. This includes assessing potential linkages
with global trading mechanisms for ecosystem services (e.g., carbon or water related) or labelling
schemes (e.g., FSC, MSC, RSPO), integration into policy processes and adjustment to existing
initiatives in the proposed project area. If Bio-rights is not likely to be successful, it should be
judged which other mechanisms (e.g. PES, traditional micro-credit schemes, establishment of
protected areas, CB-NRM) would be better suited instead for accomplishing project goals.
Annex 1 provides guidance on the overall judgement of the applicability of Bio-rights in the
anticipated project. Assuming that the approach proves appropriate, this forms the starting
point of the different implementation steps described below. It should be noted that the full
potential of Bio-rights can only be judged after implementation of steps 1B to 2A, which involve
consultation of relevant stakeholders (including the local community) and a rigorous assessment
of socio-economic and environmental site conditions. This means that the final decision to go
ahead with Bio-rights (or alternatively to opt for another approach), will only take place after
completion of a number of implementation steps.
Step 1B. Generate funds
Following the development of an overall Bio-rights concept plan, the next step is to generate
the financial resources required for project development and implementation. Some project
developers might have financial resources available internally but, more commonly, external
funding will be required from a ‘buying party’ interested in the restoration or conservation of the
ecosystem service. Potential sources of funding include i) ‘traditional’ donors, ii) the private sector
and iii) (local) governmental agencies. To bilateral and multilateral donors, Bio-rights might be
attractive as an innovative alternative to traditional approaches for addressing socio-economic
and environmental problems, in line with objectives stated, for example, in the United Nations
Millennium Declaration and under convention agreements. For private sector stakeholders and
governmental bodies Bio-rights could serve as a means to meet their obligations and ensure
the sustained provision of ecosystems services, such as, for example, the maintenance of clean

Bio-rights in theory and practice
61
drinking water supplies, carbon sequestration, flood protection and the conservation of existence
and option values. Revolving funds that generate income from tourism (e.g., park fees, wildlife
watching, eco-lodges, scuba-diving, etc.) can also serve as an important source for funding,
particularly when the explicit intention of a given ecotourism scheme is to directly channel profits
to nearby communities. More details on different motives for stakeholder groups to be involved
in Bio-rights are provided in chapter 3.1.4. Exact means of generating funding are not described
in this report. The web site of the Conservation Finance Alliance provides a wealth of information
on generating funds and resources for conservation in its Conservation Finance Guide (hosted
at www.conservationfinance.org).
Step 1C. Identification of other interested stakeholders
Conservation and development plans developed under step 1A are often linked closely to those
of other organisations. A thorough assessment of overlap in objectives and approaches and
of options for cooperation is recommended. The development of partnerships increases the
potential to generate additional project funding by tapping into the donor-networks of partner
organisations. More importantly, involving stakeholders from various disciplines enables the
matching of complementary experiences and skills. Conservation organisations, for example,
often face difficulties in incorporating development activities into their conservation efforts;
and, vice versa, the development sector struggles to incorporate environmental aspects
into its work. Previous experiences have shown that this can be addressed by developing
consortia of conservation and development organisations, with each organisation contributing
its specific experiences to the network. Given Bio-rights’ multidisciplinary approach, it is an
absolute necessity to integrate conservation and development capacity from the onset of project
development.
Discussion with potential partner organisations can also help to shape the larger context in
which Bio-rights is implemented. For example, by working with micro-credit institutions, labelling
schemes or National Park managers, linkages to other financing mechanisms can be assessed
and general conservation and development approaches can be established.
Step 1D. Selection of project sites
Once overall plans have been formulated and funding is secured, an appropriate location for
project implementation needs to be selected. This site (or several sites in the case of larger-scale
initiatives) should match all the relevant preconditions for successful project implementation.
Also, the return on investment in terms of conservation and development outcomes should be
as high as possible. The selection of an appropriate overall target region is largely based on
expert judgement by project developers. In some cases it is determined by the requirements of
the buying party. Often such a selection has already taken place in the concept development
phase (step 1A). Specific project sites within a greater region are usually identified through a
desk study, followed by a rapid inventory in the field. The desk study enables the establishment
of a shortlist of potential sites, based on remote sensing data and literature information. The
field inventory allows for the collection of additional environmental and socio-economic data
in the short-listed sites and an assessment of local perceptions in relation to Bio-rights. Data
collection is usually performed by a small team of conservation and development experts. Table
3. summarises the main aspects that need to be included in the inventories.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
62
The data collected by the research teams provides the basis for assessing the suitability of
potential project sites. The basic Decision Support System, provided in Annex 2A, can be used
as a tool in this critical phase of project development. It provides guidance on a range of key
considerations related to environmental and socio-economic aspects, as well as to the specific
‘enabling environment’ required to make Bio-rights a success. The data collected during the
inventories, will to a great extent, direct the decision-making processes, but inevitably many
subjective decisions also have to be made. This includes assessing the acceptability of any
project risks and estimating the extent to which local stakeholders will be supportive of the
- Quantification of ecosystem services provided by the
area; particular focus on resources and services to be
protected under the proposed intervention.
- Past degradation of ecosystem services; anticipated
current and future threats.
- Options for conservation and restoration of ecosystem
services.
- General site characteristics: ecosystem types, geology,
climate and biodiversity (including quantification of
populations of rare and threatened species).
- Disaster risks: past and anticipated future impacts of
floods, storms, diseases, climate change, etc.
- Landscape level characterisation of target areas (i.e.,
to assess relative importance of ecosystem services of
proposed project site in greater context and to estimate
leakage risks.)
- Connectivity of services with other areas.
- Land and resource ownership
- Community heterogeneity: presence of conflicts within
and outside community, distribution of wealth, ethnic
and religious composition, etc.
- Main income generating activities.
- Existing (traditional) approaches to natural resource
management.
- Role of local community in management and degrada-
tion of natural resources.
- External impacts: use of resources by other communi-
ties, encroachment by private sector, etc.
- General characteristics: income, vulnerability, education
and awareness, demographic characteristics.
- Local communities in the greater economic context:
assessment of economic relations with external parties.
- Local governance structure.
Field inventories are a critical part of the site selection process. Photos: Daniel Blanco (l) and
Pieter van Eijk (r).
Table 3. Key data that need to be collected as part of a rapid inventory for the selection of Bio-rights project sites
(Step 1D).
Ecological data Socio-economic data

Bio-rights in theory and practice
63
anticipated project. Thus this assessment requires a combination of straightforward interpretation
of basic data and more complex expert judgement based on a combination of various socio-
economic and environmental parameters.
Following the selection of sites that meet the basic criteria for Bio-rights implementation, a
prioritisation of sites should be made based on those most likely to be successful from an
environmental, social and economic perspective and the expected willingness among
community members to participate. In other words, the cost-benefit ratio should be optimal,
between resources invested, ecosystem services provided and socio-economic benefits derived
for the local community. The different considerations for site-prioritisation are highly subjective
and depend on the specific priorities of project implementers and buyers as well as willingness
to take risks. Annex 2B summarises a number of questions that can help in the prioritisation
process. Project developers can use these (and other) questions to select a limited number of
parameters which can be used to develop a scoring system. By allocating a different ‘weight’ to
parameters of different importance and making a division in different classes of importance (e.g.,
1 = not important to 5 = very important), a cumulative score for each site identifies those likely
to provide the highest potential overall benefits.
Stakeholder consultation in Indonesia. Photo: Pieter van Eijk.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
64
Step 1E. Network development and stakeholder consultation (I)
Once one or more potential project sites have been identified a local network of relevant actors
needs to be developed as a first step towards stakeholder consultation and joint project
development. This includes local communities as potential sellers, local NGOs, governmental
agencies, the private sector and other stakeholders active within or in the direct surroundings of
the proposed project location. Through both individual and joint meetings the Bio-rights Project
Manager informs these groups of the proposed activities (how Bio-rights works and what
specifically is intended to be accomplished). This helps to further assess whether there is sufficient
support for the approach among the key actors, or whether there are conflicting objectives that
are likely to prevent successful project implementation. Similarly, these meetings are a first step
towards establishing a means of incorporating the proposed Bio-rights intervention in regional
policies and plans. Based on the initial networking process, a selection of three classes of
stakeholders can be made, i.e. i) those that need to be involved in further project development
as part of the ‘core’ project team, ii) those that are less directly involved in project development
and implementation, but need to be kept informed and iii) those that are not related to project
development and implementation whatsoever.
Step 1F. Selection of the Local Programme Manager
Following definitive selection of a project site, a Local Programme Manager needs to be selected.
The Local Programme Manager is responsible for the management of field activities and plays
an important role in project development. Also, this actor operates as a liaison for the local
community, representing their needs during project negotiation and providing technical support
to field activities. The Local Programme Manager can be appointed from the local NGO network
established under step 1E, or alternatively can be selected through a tendering process. Previous
experiences have shown that the selection of an appropriate local NGO as the Local Programme
Manager is a key determinant of success.
NGOs should comply with the following preconditions in order to be considered for this role:
A clear track record: transparency on finances, project management and past activities.•
Proven experience with both socio-economic development and environmental conservation •
initiatives and with overall project management.
Strong working experience in the region: extensive insights into local site conditions, •
excellent relationships with local communities and a large local stakeholder network. Given
these preconditions, it is recommended to appoint a local, NGO or CBO as the Local
Programme Manager, rather than a national organisation.
Willingness to extensively work within communities: previous experiences have demonstrated •
that through having a continuous presence in the community (as opposed to intermittent
visits to the project site), the Local Programme Manager is considerably more effective in
on-the-ground project management and ensuring overall success.
Ability to represent community needs.•
Flexible in terms of project approaches, being able to adapt quickly to unexpected •
developments.
In practice, local capacities for managing community-based conservation and development
projects differ widely among regions and among individual organisations. Some local
organisations are capable of undertaking the role of Local Programme Manager without much
additional support. Others need extensive training by the Bio-rights Project Manager in advance
of project implementation, as well as supervision throughout the course of the project. The

Bio-rights in theory and practice
65
extent of the support and supervision needed should be well assessed in advance of project
implementation to minimise the risk of complications. The roles and obligations of the Local
Programme Manager and the Bio-rights Project Manager should be established in a contract.
Step 1G. Training of the Local Programme Manager
Depending on the level of experience of the appointed Local Programme Manager, training
should be provided that explains in detail the practical and theoretical aspects of the Bio-rights
approach. It should be sufficiently rigorous to enable the Local Programme Manager to support
overall project implementation and manage field activities. The training should also clarify the
responsibilities and the means of cooperation between different actors. This report can be used
as a basis for the development of such a training module.
6.3 Step 2. Project development
Step 2A. Stakeholder consultation (II): explanation of concept and group development
Following the first general round of stakeholder consultations under step 1E, the Bio-rights Project
Manager and the Local Programme Manager initiate a number of additional workshop-meetings,
targeted at developing initial project ideas and building a firm basis for project development. The
first consultation round, under step 1E, aims to acquire an overall impression of the potential
for successful project implementation by quickly scanning community perceptions about
implementing a Bio-rights project. The second consultation round more thoroughly investigates
whether local communities are prepared to participate in developing a project. This step aims to
establish an intention among all relevant stakeholders to cooperate in the full design of a project
plan, and linked to that, the development of a formal Bio-rights contract (step 3A). Thus, this
is a first step towards the development of a concrete project. The consultations in the second
round are specifically oriented towards the communities themselves, but also involve other
stakeholders closely related to the proposed project, such as local government or private sector
representatives. This round aims to make sure that all stakeholders understand the concept well
and focuses on the participants sharing their requirements, expectations and concerns . The
consultation workshops also are the starting point for an extensive trust-building process among
communities, the Bio-rights Project Manager and the Local Programme Manager that extends
throughout the project development phase.
Bio-rights contracts are nearly always signed at the group level, rather than with individuals. This
increases efficiency of project implementation, reduces overhead costs and contributes to project
sustainability (also see chapter 3.1.8). Group size typically ranges between 20-50 people. Depending
on local circumstances, including socio-economic and environmental conditions and anticipated
project scale however, it is also possible to arrange smaller (e.g. household-level) or larger (e.g. village-
level) groups.
Box 5. Group formation

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
66
The consultation meetings also serve as a means to organise community members with each
other. This is accomplished by discussing individual ideas and concerns regarding Bio-rights
implementation and by facilitating the development of a shared vision among the group.
Ultimately this results in the formation of one or more community groups, through which the
Bio-rights project will be further developed and implemented. The Local Programme Manager is
responsible for facilitating consultation and the formation of community groups. In this process it
is essential to ensure that all the voices within a community are represented and that the equality
of individual members within a group is fully taken into account. The consultation process should
therefore be explicitly pro-poor and have a focus on gender equality. The number of consultations
required is strongly site dependent. If community groups are already in place and consensus on
Bio-rights matters is easily achieved within the community, two or three meetings might suffice.
However, if groups still have to be formed, if there is disagreement among individual community
members and if trust among stakeholder groups is lacking, a more extensive consultation
process might be required before developing a concrete plan.
Step 2B. Stakeholder consultation (III): setting goals and plan development
A third round of consultation meetings informs the onset of detailed project planning. This
process is facilitated by the Local Programme Manager and involves the local community as the
selling party and the Bio-rights Project Manager as a representative of the buyer. Sometimes,
a third party also participates in project development. Government, for example, needs to be
involved in cases where local communities are not the formal owners of land and resources; the
private-sector might be a crucial partner if the proposed interventions are likely to impact the
activities of others.
Village group discussion in the Inner Niger Delta, Mali. Photo: Pieter van Eijk.

Bio-rights in theory and practice
67
Rather than working with all community members in a given region, project development takes
place with the group(s) established under step 2A. It is assumed that these groups are able
to represent the perceptions, aspirations and constraints of the wider community (e.g., at the
village or district level). As in the previous consultation round, the number of meetings required
for the establishment of project goals and detailed planning will differ between projects. This will
depend strongly on the level of trust among stakeholders, differences in their objectives and the
socio-economic and ecological site conditions. The following issues need to be discussed and
negotiated in this consultation process:
Needs of the buying party:• the conservation needs of the buying party should be
communicated and practical plans should be developed as to how certain ecosystem
services can be sustained or restored. Conservation needs should be clearly quantified, e.g.,
by expressing proposed conservation measures in terms of area of land to be protected
or restored, the number of trees to be planted or the required rate of reduction of certain
harmful activities. The exact role of the local community in the conservation of these services
should be clearly described. Community contributions can range from refraining from
unsustainable activities (by adopting alternative income generating activities), decreasing
the impact of harmful activities (by modifying harmful practices) and addressing damage
caused in the past (by restoring ecosystems), to preventing and restoring harmful activities
inflicted by others (through ecosystem conservation and restoration). The Bio-rights Project
Manager and the Local Programme Manager usually suggest specific conservation and
restoration activities. Where possible, it is best if these are incorporated or aligned with
traditional community approaches to conservation. This is important, as maintaining and
reviving community approaches to natural resource management and linking conservation
actions to day-to-day community activities has been found to significantly increase
long-term project sustainability. Examples of effective traditional community approaches
to conservation include local regulations established by community natural resource
management committees, and indigenous ecosystem techniques using local techniques
Table 4. Objectives of stakeholder consultations under steps 2A and 2B. Note that stakeholder consultations under step 2B
are targeted at the community groups developed under step 2A.
Stakeholder consultation II (Step 2A) Stakeholder consultation III (Step 2B)
- Full familiarisation of all relevant stakeholders with Bio-
rights.
- Sharing of requirements, concerns and ideas regarding
project development.
- Establishment of intent for cooperation on Bio-rights
development.
- Trust building among stakeholders and familiarisation
with the priorities and needs of individual groups.
- Formation of a shared vision among individual
participants regarding their involvement in project
development and implementation.
- Development of one or more groups (depending on
project scale) for Bio-rights implementation.
- Development of practical plans for conservation
measures.
- Establishing lost opportunity costs and the design
of development activities in response to community
needs and local site conditions.
- Setting payment conditions: number, timing and mode
of payments.
- Setting conditions for project monitoring and micro-
credit conversion.
- Setting project duration and establishing the project
area.
- Identifying and minimising project risks.
- Project design: establishing timelines for project
implementation and designing awareness-raising
activities and trainings.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
68
for seed selection, nursery development and seedling tending. Also, agreement should
be reached on the physical location of the conservation actions. These can take place
on community land itself, but also in surrounding areas, for example, by involving local
communities in the patrolling and restoration of nearby national parks and reserves.
Needs of the local community:• as part of the consultation, the Bio-rights Project Manager
and the Local Programme Manager, together with the local community, first of all determine
the lost opportunity costs for the community resulting from the proposed conservation
activities. These can be identified by mapping out the income generating activities that will
be affected by these conservation measures and calculating the associated financial losses.
Often the community consultations and the rapid assessment performed under step 1D
will have provided sufficient insight into the lost opportunity costs, although additional field
surveys might be required to make a more accurate estimate. Once exact lost opportunity
costs have been calculated, concrete alternative development activities should be identified.
The income generated from these activities should be at least equal to (and preferably
exceed) the lost opportunity costs to ensure that communities are able to participate without
a negative short- or long-term impact on their livelihoods. It is up to the community groups
themselves to identify which development activities they wish to undertake in return for their
involvement in conservation. Where needed, the Bio-rights Project Manager and the Local
Programme Manager can help the community in the selection of appropriate activities.
They might, for example, suggest income-generating activities that have proved successful
elsewhere or alternatively invite other community groups to share their experiences. Also,
they facilitate the overall decision-making process. The Bio-rights Project Manager and the
Local Programme Manager are responsible for making sure that the selected development
activities are sustainable and don’t conflict with conservation objectives.
Payment conditions:• the next step is to agree on how the micro-credits will be disbursed.
This is an important step as both project risks and outcomes are largely determined by
the characteristics of the chosen payments scheme. A single payment at the start of a
project optimises development opportunities for the community involved and provides a
strong incentive for the delivery of successful conservation measures. However, this could
also be risky, particularly under weak governance conditions where it is hard to enforce
contractual obligations. Similarly, when there are uncertainties with regard to the dedication
and involvement of the community groups and if the different stakeholders are not yet
sufficiently familiar with each other, a one-off payment might bring significant project risks.
Such risks can be reduced by disbursing the micro-credits in various instalments throughout
the course of the project, similar to payments provided under Payments for Environmental
Services (PES) schemes. In this case, payments are provided at certain landmarks in the
project, e.g., when specific conservation obligations have been met. The disadvantage
of this approach is that communities don’t have access to part of the financial resources
during a considerable part of the project implementation period. This could negatively affect
both the conservation and development outcome of the project. Rigorous judgement of site
conditions should help to decide what kind of payment scheme is appropriate. The mode
of payment should also be determined. Often this is in-kind, through direct procurement
of the materials needed for the anticipated development activities by the Local Programme
Manager, which in turn are provided to the community involved. Alternatively, local
communities can be given responsibility for the procurement of these materials themselves.
In this case, they are provided with cash payments that cover the respective costs. The
latter approach should only be adopted when it is sufficiently clear that the communities

Bio-rights in theory and practice
69
involved will indeed allocate the payments provided for implementing the agreed activities.
The setting of payment conditions is largely in the hands of the Bio-rights Project Manager
and the Local Programme Manager, as the means of micro-credit disbursal, to a great
extent, determines the financial risks that are born by the buyer. It is important, however, to
make sure that local communities also have the opportunity to express their views on this
issue. This increases project ownership and helps to ensure an optimal balance between
minimising project risks and optimising community development opportunities.
Monitoring and evaluation:• communities, together with the Local Programme Manager
and the Bio-rights Project Manager, should agree on how conservation activities are to be
evaluated and the conditions on which micro-credits are converted into definitive payments.
This entails reaching agreement on i) the role of various actors in project monitoring, ii)
the frequency and timing of project monitoring activities and iii) indicators for success. It
is recommended that communities are involved in the monitoring process. This helps to
optimise transparency regarding micro-credit conversion, and also serves as an effective
awareness raising tool: if local communities actively record the ecosystem services and
associated benefits that result from conservation efforts, they are more likely to be willing to
sustain these in the long term, beyond the lifetime of the project. The selection of specific
indicators for success is highly project-specific. Care should be taken to ensure that these are
measurable and in line with the selected conservation objectives. Examples of measurable
indicators include the degree of illegal logging or hunting, rate of land conversion, number
of community patrolling operations and survival rates of replanted trees. Besides setting the
specific conditions upon which micro-credit conversion takes place, the consequences of
not meeting conservation targets also need to be agreed upon. These can range from full
repayment of the loan, to partial reimbursement if some (but insufficient) conservation gains
have been made.
Project area and duration:• all stakeholders involved in project development jointly determine
the geographical boundaries of the proposed project. Delineation will be , dependent on
a number of considerations, such as community ownership of land, the project scale
and the proposed conservation objectives. Similarly, the proposed duration of the project
should be discussed. This will depend strongly on local site conditions: if the proposed
conservation activities are also economically attractive in the long-term for the communities
involved, a several-year intervention usually suffices. In this case, it is a matter of covering
the costs of converting towards a sustainable land use system while raising awareness
on the importance of sound management of environmental resources (see chapter 4.3).
Sometimes, however, land conversion (e.g., for agriculture) will remain economically more
attractive for in-situ users than the benefits delivered by the ecosystem services that
are being conserved. In this case, long-term (renewable) Bio-rights contracts should be
established to ensure sustained conservation. Obviously, in the latter case, a project can
be developed only if long-term financial resources are available in advance. In cases of
short-term (several-year) initiatives, discussion is recommended on future approaches to
conservation and development in the target area beyond the project implementation period.
Obviously, it is difficult (if not impossible) to define binding long-term obligations in a short-
term contract. However, establishing an informal intention among the community for the
continuity of the sustainable development and conservation activities creates a framework
for community-based natural resource management that can take place without external
support. This significantly increases long-term sustainability.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
70
Project risks: • risks of project failure can be significantly reduced by identifying those factors
that pose a threat to the project meeting its conservation and development objectives.
These include, risks related to immigration, leakage, external impacts and unsustainable
development. Once these risks have been identified and clarified to all stakeholders involved,
strategies should be developed that can reduce these risks. This can entail the development
of specific regulations that should be taken into account by the communities involved (e.g.,
to avoid leakage caused by the displacement of unsustainable community activities outside
the project area) as well as identification of additional conservation measures (e.g., to
curb harmful external impacts). Ways of minimising risks related to extreme events, such
as storms, floods and droughts should also be identified. A force majeure clause, which
identifies rights and obligations in the case of such unexpected events, should be developed
and agreed upon by all relevant stakeholders.
Project design:• finally, the specific design of a project should be discussed and agreed
by all stakeholders. This includes reaching consensus on when specific conservation and
development activities are to be undertaken as well as on specific obligations for both the
community and the Local Programme Manager regarding awareness-raising activities and
the provision of technical trainings. Also, ways in which the planned activities can be linked
to other activities and policies within the region should be identified (see step 2D).
Critical aspects of project development: establishment of roles and responsibilities of group
members (l) and mapping of project locations (r). Photo: Pieter van Eijk.

Bio-rights in theory and practice
71
Step 2C. Further field studies
In parallel with plan development, further field inventories should be performed, where needed,
to complement the information collected during the rapid inventories under step 1D. This data
can help to make conservation and development objectives more specific and to establish a
proper baseline on which project progress and overall achievements can be assessed. The
inventory team should consist of the same conservation and development experts involved in
step 1D, but could also include community group members and local government officials. This
will improve access to local community knowledge and maximises the involvement of all the
stakeholders in project development.
Step 2D. Fitting a Bio-rights plan into the wider context
The concrete project plan developed under step 2B, is more likely to be successful if it is
integrated with other conservation and development activities within the project area. The Local
Programme Manager and the Bio-rights Project Manager are responsible for identifying and
assessing existing initiatives involving local communities, NGOs and governments. Together with
the local community they discuss potential linkages with other initiatives that could strengthen the
project, discussing for example whether it is possible to connect the project plan to any practical
activities ongoing in the field. Examples of such cooperation might include joint protection of
a conservation area (e.g., working together with national park staff), restoration of degraded
habitats (e.g., by working with another NGO active within the region) or cooperating with local
micro-credit institutions. Likewise, a linkage can often be made with local policies: for example,
by aligning Bio-rights with existing legislation or getting the approach incorporated into new
policies and plans. The active involvement of local government in Bio-rights development can
significantly help to reduce project risks. This can be accomplished by creating interest and
enthusiasm for the proposed initiative among local officials. Equally tapping into local governance
frameworks can help ensure strict enforcement of the contractual agreements. This is beneficial
from the perspectives of both the local community and the buying party.
The Local Programme Manager, has a key role to play as a facilitator in project development and
as a project manager during implementation of activities in the field. Capacity for facilitating and
managing Bio-rights projects differs strongly among local NGOs in different regions and has been
found to be a key determinant of project success. It is the responsibility of the Bio-rights Project
Manager to select the Local Programme Manager from the best candidates available and to provide
appropriate training on Bio-rights implementation (and sometimes also on general conservation and
development approaches). However, despite rigorous recruitment procedures and extensive trainings,
the extent to which a Local Programme Manager is able to operate independently will vary from place
to place. In the ideal case, the Local Programme Manager can take full responsibility for facilitating
project development and managing implementation. More often, however, Local Programme Managers
need additional directions from the Bio-rights Project Manager in their day-to-day facilitation and
management tasks. It is up to the Bio-rights Project Manager to ensure that the Local Programme
Manager receives the appropriate back-up at the right moments. In practice this could mean that
the Bio-rights Project Manager needs to closely follow the different steps undertaken by the Local
Programme Manager and that some facilitation and management activities are undertaken jointly.
The different tasks allocated to the Local Program meManager in this report, thus, are also relevant to
Bio-rights Project Managers.
Box 6. Bio-rights Manager and Local Programme Manager: level of independence

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
72
Step 2E. Overcome policy hurdles
It is of the utmost importance to make sure that the project plan does not conflict with local
policies otherwise the implementation of the plan may be hampered by bureaucratic hurdles.
The Local Programme Manager is responsible for involving government in project development
(step 2A-2C) and informing parties indirectly involved in project development of the content
and progress of the proposed project. If any obstructions emerge, these need to be resolved
in advance of contract negotiation and project implementation. Examples of the types of
interventions that might be required before proceeding further include: negotiation of community
rights over land and resources, enhanced community involvement in policy development or
even modification of policies, spatial plans and legislation. One effective way of ensuring efficient
integration of Bio-rights into local policies and of addressing policy hurdles is to involve relevant
government agencies as formal partners in the project development and the signing of the
contract.
Bio-rights contract, signed with community group in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Photo: Pieter van
Eijk.

Bio-rights in theory and practice
73
6.4 Step 3. Contract development
Step 3A. Contract negotiation
The project plan developed under step 2B forms the basis for a formal contract. Contract
development is facilitated by the Local Programme Manager, who is responsible for ensuring
that all the details described within the project plan are incorporated within the contract. Similarly
the Local Programme Manager should make sure that all parties involved in project development
have an equal opportunity to participate in and contribute to the final negotiation process. The
contract should comply with local legislative structures to make sure that contractual agreements
can be effectively enforced if one of the contract signatories fails to meet its obligations.
Sometimes, under weak governance conditions, contract enforcement through government
is unlikely to be successful. If this is the case, an attempt should be made to link the Bio-
rights contract to existing community regulations and enforcement structures, e.g., by including
agreed-upon objectives and obligations under the Bio-rights contract in local bylaws. Under
these conditions, building trust among stakeholders and a shared commitment to succeed is,
an absolute requirement to reduce project risks as much as possible.
As described above, the precise format of a Bio-rights contract is highly site-specific. Nonetheless,
each contract should contain a number of elements concerning the implementation of specific
conservation and development activities, obligations with regard to capacity building and
awareness-raising, the number of people involved, the project area and duration and measures
required to minimise project risks. See Annex 4 for a checklist. More information is provided in
chapter 3.1.8.
Step 3B. Signing of the Bio-rights contract
A formal contract signing ceremony, organised by the Local Programme Manager, marks the
next step towards project implementation. The participation of the local government in this
important event is highly recommended, whether or not the government is formally involved as
a signatory to the contract. It is also possible to provide local government with a facilitating role,
for example, by organising the ceremony in a government building or asking an official to act as
a host or observer. A range of other stakeholders should also be invited to attend the contract
A key characteristic of the Bio-rights approach is that it tries, as much as possible, to incorporate
community development objectives and local approaches and priorities into the conservation objectives
of a buying party. The approach is organised as a ‘business-deal’ that reconciles priorities and needs
based on equality among stakeholders. However, the fact that the business deal is made between a
relatively rich and often powerful organisation and a generally poor community with few development
options and often with a weak voice, brings along the risk of the approach becoming too much top
down. It is the task of the intermediary actors (the Local Program Manager and the Bio-rights Project
Manager) to ensure that the rights and needs of the selling party are recognised and acknowledged
and that under no circumstance are conditions imposed upon them. Obviously, this does not mean that
one of the parties involved can’t come up with certain demands or preconditions, but these should be
discussed and negotiated in a fair and open process. In their roles as facilitators, the Local Program
Manager and the Bio-rights Project Manager are also responsible for ensuring equality among different
groups within a community, by facilitating the creation of broad support and a shared vision with
regard to the anticipated Bio-rights initiative.
Box 7. Top-down or not?

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
74
signing. This will contribute to increasing the project’s regional momentum and visibility. A formal
festivity also increases dedication to the project among contract signatories and enhances trust-
building among the full range of stakeholders directly or indirectly involved in the project.
6.5 Step 4. Project implementation
Step 4A. Capacity building and awareness raising
As the next step, the Local Programme Manager organises various capacity building activities
targeted at the respective community group(s). These trainings build relevant skills in technical
aspects of environmental conservation and restoration, as well as in the implementation
of sustainable income generating activities. The exact content of the technical trainings will
have been earlier agreed on with the local community. In parallel to the technical trainings,
awareness raising activities are organised to develop insights into the importance of sustainable
natural resource management for local livelihoods. Communities might themselves organise
activities to inform the Bio-rights Project Manager and the Local Programme Manager about
the traditional development and conservation knowledge that they possess. This is particularly
relevant if community knowledge and approaches form an integral part of the overall project
design. Capacity building and awareness raising is usually the most intense at an early stage of
project implementation, but can also take place later in the project, parallel to the field activities.
The Local Programme Manager is responsible for monitoring the progress of conservation
and development activities and for responding to unexpected knowledge gaps by organising
additional training activities.
The Local Programme Manager is responsible for identifying the most appropriate means of
training and awareness-raising given the local site conditions. Examples of practical approaches
include organising group discussions, providing presentations and developing on-the-ground,
experiential learning-by-doing training courses. Community exchange programmes have also
proved to be an effective approach to building capacity and awareness-raising. These can be
organised either by arranging study tours to other areas (e.g., where previous Bio-rights projects
have been implemented) or by inviting communities from elsewhere to share their conservation
and development experiences.
Bio-rights trainees (l) and awareness raising activities (r). Photos: Pieter van Eijk (l) and Yus Rusila
Noor (r).

Bio-rights in theory and practice
75
Step 4B. Issuing micro-credits
Next, the Local Programme Manager disburses micro-credits to the local community to enable
the communities to embark upon initiating sustainable development activities. Depending on the
contractual agreement, this may either be a one-off payment or the first of a series of payments
that will be provided throughout the project. Payments can be in cash or in kind, for example,
through the procurement of materials needed to begin development activities.
Step 4C. Initiating conservation and development activities
The scheduling of conservation and development activities in different phases of the project
depends on the nature of the planned measures and on local site conditions (availability of labour
force, environmental conditions, etc.). Usually an attempt is made to implement conservation
and development activities in parallel with one other and to begin both sets of activities as early
as possible in the implementation phase, directly after capacity building and the disbursal of
micro-credits. The Local Programme Manager is responsible for facilitating the community’s
work. Community-planning meetings help to refine the overall project implementation plan,
developed under step 2B. These meetings are held on a regular basis (e.g., once every two
weeks, and more often in the beginning) in order to develop concrete week-to-week work plans
and to delegate tasks among individual participants. It is preferable to organise such group
sessions at a fixed location (e.g., a village centre or the house of the village leader), with access
to appropriate materials to document the outcome of discussions, for example, by means
of tabulated activity plans and maps. The Local Programme Manager is also responsible for
providing the materials needed for the planned conservation activities and for providing technical
support in the field once these measures are initiated.
Example of a tabulated work plan developed by the Bio-rights community in Pesantren Village,
Java (Indonesia). It contains information on (from left to right) planned activities, timing, the
individuals responsible and the locations of the actions.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
76
ICDPs have been implemented by conservationists on a large scale since the 1980s as a means to
address the multiple challenges of conservation and development. Many of these projects are currently
considered a failure, notwithstanding the fact that the rationale behind ICDPs still stands. In an extensive
review paper, Wells & McShane (2004) explain why ICDPs did not manage to live up to the expectations.
They provide an extensive overview of lessons that can be drawn from past field experiences. Many
of these are relevant for a wider group of approaches to conservation and sustainable development,
and therefore also apply to Bio-rights. The following issues mentioned in the review are of particular
importance in this respect. Careful consideration will significantly reduce project risks and help to avoid
the pitfalls that were experienced by others in the past:
- Many ICDPs relied on the assumption that careful planning and cooperation would lead to win-
win outcomes from both a conservation and development perspective. In reality, there might be
significant trade-offs that constrain achievement of ‘win-win’ solutions. These should be carefully
mapped out in advance of project implementation and, where needed, financing should be allocated
to ensure that appropriate compensation is provided to cover lost opportunity costs and resolve
(future) conflicts.
- Local communities have in many cases been considered the foremost root cause of environmental
degradation. In some cases, other activities such as road construction, plantation development and
commercial logging proved more important drivers of degradation. Where this is the case, a purely
community-oriented approach is unlikely to deliver successful conservation outcomes.
- ICDPs have often disproportionately emphasized detailed project planning, while insufficiently
allowing for flexibility during the implementation process. Project implementers often proved
incapable of adjusting to unexpected circumstances and of allocating sufficient resources to deviate
from project plans. Lack of flexibility and appropriate tailoring of project activities to local site
conditions has significantly impacted the overall effectiveness of ICDPs.
- Many projects have a short implementation period, ranging typically between two and five years. Often
this is far from sufficient to build the necessary level of trust among stakeholders, to appropriately
involve local communities in project development and to ensure community involvement in regional
policy processes. This has considerable consequences for long-term sustainability, as community
involvement is not likely to be maintained without appropriate local capacity and decision making
structures in place.
- Many ICDPs tend to focus too much on activities rather than on the anticipated impacts of
interventions. This has often resulted in a gradual but inevitable deviation from project objectives,
lack of flexibility and misunderstanding among stakeholders.
- Often too much emphasis was placed on site-specific actions to target local problems. There has
been insufficient recognition that many conservation challenges can only be addressed within
a broader spatial, temporal and political context. For local community-based interventions to be
successful in the long-term, there is a strong need to ensure integration within this broader context,
involving, among others, multi-sectoral planning, policy influencing and law enforcement.
Box 8. Avoiding the mistakes of Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs)

Bio-rights in theory and practice
77
6.6 Step 5. Project monitoring and evaluation
Step 5A. Monitoring progress and project outcomes
Monitoring and evaluation, take place at different stages of the project and is an integral part
of Bio-rights implementation. Continuous project monitoring helps to optimally align project
activities to local circumstances and to respond to unexpected problems. Thus it is an important
tool for the Local Programme Manager to ensure that individual actions are undertaken in a
timely manner and that final project objectives are accomplished. If micro-credits are disbursed
in several instalments, the continuous monitoring process can help to assess the intermediate
landmarks and accomplishments, on which payments are provided. Final project monitoring
enables the assessment of the overall success of the project and, most importantly, is the basis
for the conversion of the micro-credits into definitive payments.
Monitoring activities are managed by the Local Programme Manager and overseen by the Bio-
rights Project Manager on behalf of the buying party. For large-scale initiatives (e.g., a CDM
reforestation project or a labelling project implemented through Bio-rights) external auditors
might be required. This is particularly relevant when a project needs to comply with international
regulations or standards. External audits are costly, however, so use of monitoring capacity
within the project team is recommended wherever possible (or alternatively by recruiting local
staff). The local community should be involved in the monitoring activities as much as possible,
as this enhances awareness about sustainable resource management and helps provide insights
into the progress of project activities. The best means of facilitating this is by organising joint
sessions in the field, in which local communities and project staff jointly monitor project process
and outcomes.
The primary objective of monitoring activities is to assess the project’s conservation activities,
ensure that conservation objectives are being, or have been, met and to assess whether the
micro-credits can be converted into definitive payments. Monitoring of socio-economic activities
is also very important, to optimize local development options and to ensure that the development
activities conform to sustainability criteria. Aspects related to overall project process - such as
cooperation, project management and meeting targets - are also monitored to judge whether
any improvements need to be made that will enhance the project’s efficiency and improve
cooperation among parties.
Step 5B. Micro-credit conversion
The project monitoring outcome is used as the basis for the conversion of the micro-credits
into definitive payments. This takes place towards the end of the implementation period as
defined in the contractual agreement. Usually this is anywhere between three and ten years
after the start of the project. If conservation objectives have not been met, all or part of the
micro-credits (depending on the agreements about service delivery set out in the contract) has
to be returned by the community. The obligations surrounding such a reimbursement should
have been specified in the contract. If contractual agreements are violated, formal steps can be
taken where needed, e.g., by bringing any conflicts to the court or by requesting government
intervention. The chosen approach will greatly depend upon existing local governance structures
and the specific design of the project. In either situation it is highly recommended to first try to
resolve conflicts internally.
Any micro-credits repaid by a certain community as a result of failure to meet conservation
obligations can be reinvested in other Bio-rights projects that have proved successful in delivering

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
78
Following almost a decade of piloting the Bio-rights approach (see chapter 7-10), a number of issues
have emerged as critical factors for success. Below are 10 key considerations that will help you to
implement Bio-rights successfully:
1. Understand the approach…
Failure to understand the pitfalls of Bio-rights implementation and to recognise the key requirements for success
significantly affects the approach’s outcome. Sound knowledge of all aspects related to project development and
implementation, and of the different implementation steps to take, is therefore of critical importance. That said,
implementers should make sure that the approach is at all times implemented flexibly and well aligned to local site
conditions.
2. Ensure sound site selection…
Socio-economic, environmental and political conditions determine the suitability of a project site for Bio-rights
implementation. Only through a rigorous site selection process - including field inventories and stakeholder
consultations - can it be determined which sites are suitable and where cost-benefit rates are likely to be optimal.
3. Bring together the right conservation and development knowledge…
Conservation organisations often lack the technical knowledge to incorporate development activities in their work.
Vice versa, the same is true of the development sector. Rather than starting a process of trial and error, joint
implementation of activities with partners from different sectors is recommended to ensure the availability of the
right skills.
4. Think of long-term sustainability…
Bio-rights activities might be successful in the short term, during project implementation, but real success is only
accomplished when conservation and development outcomes are sustained. This requires developing strategies
for long-term sustainability, including identification of long-term conservation funding, ensuring awareness
and capacity for sustainable resource management and enhancing sustainable development opportunities for
communities beyond the lifetime of the project.
5. Assure appropriate awareness raising and capacity building…
An incentive mechanism in itself is not sufficient for addressing the poverty trap. Complementary capacity building
and awareness raising activities are an absolute necessity for ensuring that communities are aware of the
importance of ecosystem services for supporting livelihoods and have the skills to engage in sustainable natural
resource management.
6. Link to policies…
Community-based conservation actions are of limited value if they don’t match formal policies, particularly in cases
where communities do not formally own land and resources. Mainstreaming Bio-rights into existing and newly
emerging policies is an essential key for success.
7. Monitor your work…
Monitoring and evaluation during project implementation is essential to ensure adjustment to unexpected events.
As Bio-rights is a relatively new approach, noting the lessons learned is of critical importance to help improve future
initiatives.
8. Involve all stakeholders…
Ensuring the representation of all the relevant stakeholders during project development and accommodating their
needs and aspirations will help to avoid conflicts of interests during project implementation.
9. Build trust within the community and among other stakeholders involved….
Trust and mutual respect between stakeholders are key ingredients to success. Invest in good relationships and
allocate sufficient time for accomplishing this.
10. Be there for the community…
The more closely the local community is supported throughout the project’s lifetime, the higher the chances that
the project objectives will be achieved. Where possible, Local Programme Managers should have a permanent
presence in the area.
Box 9. Ten tips for successful Bio-rights implementation

Bio-rights in theory and practice
79
conservation services. Earlier projects have shown that this approach is an appropriate way to
stimulate healthy competition between community groups in order to accomplish maximum
conservation outcomes, thus increasing the opportunity to be involved in additional conservation
activities.
Step 5C. Evaluating lessons learned
After projects are completed they should be evaluated to see what lessons about project
implementation can be learned. These evaluations should inform the implementation of future
Bio-rights projects in the field and help further refine the Bio-rights framework itself. Quantified
information on conservation and development outcomes is of particular importance. Such data
is crucial for calculating the return on the investment, as well as for making more effective
comparisons between the costs and benefits of Bio-rights and other conservation and
development approaches. The environmental and socio-economic information collected during
the inventory under step 1D (and the additional data collected in consecutive stages) provides
a critical baseline for assessing project outcomes. Ideally, evaluation of project sites should
continue in the years following project finalisation, so as to assess the long-term outcome of the
Bio-rights interventions.
6.7 Project duration
The average duration of a Bio-rights intervention largely depends on local site conditions and
the objectives of the project. In cases where Bio-rights operates as a mechanism to help local
communities convert from unsustainable land and resource use into sustainable development,
a short 3-4 year intervention might suffice. However, where Bio-rights is implemented as
an alternative means of Payments for Environmental Services, permanent or renewable
contracts should be signed which are in place for 10 years or more. The duration of individual
implementation steps largely depends on site-specific factors including: previous implementation
experiences in the region that can be built on, the existence of effective community groups, the
local governance context, community perceptions, the availability of baseline information and
the socio-economic complexity. Table 5 identifies the average duration of the five main phases of
project implementation. Please note that, depending on the local context, different steps might
be implemented in parallel to optimise the efficiency of operations.
Table 5. Project duration for different implementation steps.
Implementation step Average duration
Step 1. Project initiation 3-6 months
Step 2. Project development 2-4 months
Step 3. Contract development 1-2 months
Step 4. Project implementation 2->10 years *
Step 5. Project monitoring and evaluation 1-2 months **
* Depending on the nature of the project: short for community-based natural resource management activities; long for
PES-based approaches.
** Ongoing monitoring also takes place throughout the project implementation.

Part III.
Examples from the field
Bio-rights group member proudly showing recently
planted flood forest tree in the Inner Niger Delta, Mali.
Photo: Pieter van Eijk.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
82

Bio-rights in theory and practice
83
7. Bio-rights 1998-2008
Over the last decade, Bio-rights has transformed from a very small-scale pilot initiative into a
major tool for reconciling poverty alleviation and nature conservation and has come to occupy a
central role within Wetlands International’s conservation and development programme. The initial
Bio-rights initiatives were taken in cooperation with local NGOs in Central Java, in response to
the difficulties that they were faced in reconciling local conservation and development objectives.
By starting small and working extensively with local communities, a mechanism has been
developed which promotes the needs and ambitions of local communities without comprising
conservation objectives. Special efforts were made to avoid many of the mistakes made under
Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs) in the 1980s (see box 8). This was
accomplished by ensuring the availability of the right development experience, by allowing
sufficient time for long-term implementation and by ensuring appropriate alignment between
conservation objectives, local community needs and site conditions.
7.1 Bio-rights history
The first Bio-rights project was implemented in 1998 in the coastal district of Pemalang, Java
(Indonesia) when a deal was made with a small group of fishpond owners for the re-greening
of their land. In return for planting tens of thousands of mangroves, the project supported a
range of sustainable development activities. Now, 10 years later, the Pesantren community is
thriving, continuously improving the management of their land and expanding their re-greening
activities on a voluntary basis. On a similar scale, the CIDA funded CCFPI project adopted the
Bio-rights approach for working with local Dayak communities to restore degraded peatlands
in Kalimantan (Indonesia). Large-scale peatland rehabilitation started by using local knowledge
about how to block drainage canals, which significantly reduced the burning and desiccation of
peat deposits. This has led to an estimated 5 million tonnes of avoided CO2emissions. Bio-rights
activities in Mali initially focused on women’s groups, which were involved in the harvesting and
trade of tens of thousands of migratory water birds. These birds have a high conservation value
in Europe, but only are of limited economic value in Mali’s local markets. By providing alternatives
to poaching and by training community members as wetland guards, Wetlands International,
with local NGOs and governmental agencies, succeeded in greatly reducing hunting pressure
in the inner Niger Delta. In subsequent projects in the region, local communities have received
development support to for restore flood forests and flood plain grasslands.
The success of these pilots has led to the up-scaling of the approach. Under the Green Coast
tsunami response project, Bio-rights has been used as a tool for involving local communities in
restoring coastal areas that were battered by the 2004 tsunami. In Aceh Darussalam province,
Sumatra (Indonesia), no less than 70 Bio-rights projects were implemented through a small
grants scheme. Similarly, Bio-rights has played a major role in the Central Kalimantan Peatland
Project (CKPP) and the Wetlands and Poverty Reduction Programme (WPRP).

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
84
7.2 Plans for the future
Both within and outside of Wetlands International, there is growing interest in Bio-rights and the
approach is likely to be implemented in various other countries in the near term. Future initiatives
will further explore financing opportunities from private sector stakeholders. For example,
payments for the provision of watershed services are currently being discussed with a hydropower
company in India, as part of an integrated water resource management initiative. In Indonesia,
efforts are being made to sell avoided carbon emissions from peatland restoration initiatives as
Voluntary Emission Reductions (VERs) on the voluntarily carbon market. The revenues generated
will be channelled, through Bio-rights, directly to the local communities involved in restoration.
A Global Peatland Fund is currently being established as a major fundraising body and as an
effective governance structure for the disbursal of payments. This diversification of approaches
and project locations is intended to further strengthen Bio-rights implementation and provide
increased insights into its applicability under different conditions.
7.3 Outlook
Despite the rapid evolution of the approach and the many lessons learned from previous
experiences, there are still many challenges ahead. So far, most funding for Bio-rights
implementation has been derived from multilateral donors. Real up-scaling can only successfully
take place if future Bio-rights initiatives manage to tap into corporate funding, e.g., for avoided
carbon emissions under REDD, or payments for watershed services. Another major challenge
is to strengthen linkages with other conservation and development approaches, such as
generic micro-credit schemes or sustainability labels for commodities. In this report Bio-rights
is presented largely as a tool for jointly promoting the sustainable management of areas of high
conservation value areas and sustainable community-development. However, it should be clear
that Bio-rights might also prove of value in areas with limited conservation values,. For example
the approach could be used to help transform degraded ‘wastelands’ into economically viable
and sustainably managed agricultural systems. In this case, Bio-rights would be used to restore
and maximise the potential of ecosystem services to sustainably support the livelihoods of local
people, rather than for specific conservation objectives.
Community-based restoration of degraded peatlands in Kalimantan, Indonesia has led to
significant avoided emissions of carbon dioxide and contributed to biodiversity conservation.
Photos: Yus Rusila Noor.

Bio-rights in theory and practice
85
All these different applications, angles and objectives require extensive piloting and evaluation
in order to understand the full potential of the approach and to enable smooth incorporation of
Bio-rights into existing conservation and development programmes. Implementing Bio-rights
has proved a constant learning curve. Critical issues, such as risk mitigation and long-term
sustainability, can only be addressed by adapting to the latest developments and learning from
mistakes made in the past. A better quantification of project outcomes is desirable to support this
process. The capacities of local NGOs in the role of Local Programme Managers, as well as the
skills of the Bio-rights Project Managers, have proven to be critical to successfully implementing
Bio-rights. It is therefore of the utmost importance that lessons learned are transferred among
participants and that capacity is built in key aspects of Bio-rights implementation. The following
chapters illustrate how Bio-rights has been implemented in practice and the lessons that can be
learned from previous initiatives6.
6 Currently efforts are underway to quantify these
experiences in more detail. Results will be made available
online at www.wetlands.org.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
86
8. Case I. Mangrove restoration on Java,
Indonesia
8.1 Introduction
In the early 1980s, aquaculture development significantly expanded throughout the coastal
areas of Southeast Asia, in response to increasing worldwide demand for tropical shrimps. Huge
expanses of mangrove habitat were converted into intensely managed aquaculture systems,
which had low environmental values and generated high levels of pollution from fertilisers,
pesticides and antibiotics. The mangrove systems in Pemalang district in central Java, entirely
disappeared within a few years. Unaware of the great importance of mangrove systems as
providers of goods - such as fish, crustaceans and shellfish - and as protectors against erosion
and storm damage, local communities agreed to lease their land to external investors. These
investors hired the community groups to clear the mangroves and construct and maintain the
pond systems. Both land lease payments and daily wages were extremely low. In the first years
after pond construction, shrimp cultivation delivered huge profits, of which only a tiny fraction
reached the local community. In subsequent years diseases, such as white spot syndrome
virus, reduced production to virtually zero, with even indigenous shrimp species becoming
nearly eliminated. As a consequence the investors left the area, leaving the communities in great
poverty and lacking financial or natural capital. The mangrove degradation also caused extreme
erosion, which led to the loss of an approximately 200 m wide stretch of valuable community
land, and regular flooding during storm surges and exceptionally high tides. This prevented any
further efforts to successfully cultivate shrimps or milk fish in the degraded ponds and increased
the vulnerability of local villagers who were often confronted with seawater entering their houses
up to one kilometre inland.
Recognising these challenges a local NGO, Mitra Bahari, facilitated by the Wetlands International
Indonesia Programme (WI-IP) and the Pemalang District Forestry Agency, started several small-
scale activities targeted at re-greening the area. In this pilot phase, many challenges were faced,
particularly with regard to developing appropriate techniques for planting and tending seedlings.
The project in brief:
Objective: Restoring biodiversity and the ecological functioning of mangroves; improving livelihoods
through developing a sustainable fisheries system for poor coastal communities. Where? The coastal
areas of Pemalang District, Central Java (Indonesia). Implemented by: Wetlands International - Indonesia
Programme, in collaboration with Mitra Bahari and several local community-based organisations.
Funded by: Royal Netherlands Embassy. Implementation period: 1998-2005. Budget: € 25,000. Main
accomplishments: Creation of a mangrove belt and regreening of existing fishponds on 50 hectares of
community land, leading to the revival of mangrove-related biodiversity and functioning. Subsequently the
community has voluntarily replanted more mangroves. A threefold increase in the incomes of approximately
200 people as a result of sustainable development activities and the restoration of mangroves and the
goods and services they provide. A significant decrease in vulnerability to erosion and storm damage.
Replication of replanting activities elsewhere, without external incentives.

Bio-rights in theory and practice
87
In 1998 Wetlands International further strengthened these efforts by implementing its first-
ever Bio-rights initiative, targeted at a group of just five people, through the provision of a loan
equivalent to €50. In subsequent years activities have been up-scaled to seven groups each
with 40 individuals. Since then, communities have started to maintain and restore mangroves
on their land on a voluntary basis, without any additional external incentives. Communities in
the surrounding areas have started to replicate the approach. Pemalang now serves as a best-
practice site, demonstrating the merits of community involvement in environmental conservation
to a broad audience of regional, national and international visitors.
8.2 Project initiation
In the late 1990s Wetlands International organised a major mangrove restoration programme
throughout Indonesia. Small grants of several thousand euros each were provided to local NGOs
throughout the country to promote replanting activities. The coastal restoration works drew the
attention of the Dutch Embassy, which pledged approximately €25,000 for additional restoration
works. Some of this funding was used to expand the ongoing Bio-rights project in the Pemalang
district in Central Java. The approach was adopted because of the recognition of the difficulties
faced by previous projects in involving local communities in mangrove restoration activities: In
these former projects communities were often only interested in being involved in planting if
Degraded shrimp pond in Aceh, Indonesia. Photo: Pieter van Eijk.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
88
a wage were offered, while in subsequent years they showed little interest in maintaining and
protecting the seedlings. This unsustainable situation led Wetlands International to consider new
approaches that would ensure the longer-term involvement of local communities in restoration
works, as well as increased community ownership and awareness.
Wetlands International identified a coastal area in central Java, experiencing high levels of
degradation and associated problems related to poverty and vulnerability as a promising region
for piloting Bio-rights. Two years earlier, local partner NGOs and government agencies had
initiated several small-scale regreening activities in this area with local villagers. It was decided
to build upon these achievements and develop rehabilitation activities that contained a specific
component related to developing sustainable livelihoods. Previous projects in the area had
helped to build trust between local community members and NGOs and a momentum for
additional replanting activities. As a result, only a few meetings were required to get the local
community and other local stakeholders involved in the initiative. Mitra Bahari, a local NGO,
which was involved in the earlier rehabilitation initiatives, was appointed as the Local Programme
Manager. Several trainings were organised for local partner organisations to familiarise them with
the Bio-rights concept, but as the approach existed only on paper, many elements still had to be
developed. Thus, Mitra Bahari played an important role in the shaping of Bio-rights as it is now.
8.3 Project development
Following the recruitment of Mitra Bahari as the Local Programme Manager, various community
meetings were organised to develop a concrete project plan. An important step within this
process was the formation of individual community groups. These groups would operate as
the primary implementers of restoration activities and the recipients of associated micro-credits.
Bio-rights started at a very small scale, working with one group of just five people, but six more
groups were rapidly formed. The number of people involved increased in the course of the
project to a total of 40 individuals per group. Several years after project implementation, these
groups still exist and have developed into corporations, formally registered under Indonesian
law. Already in an early stage community members have established a distinct distribution of
tasks within the groups. A group leader, directly advised by the local village head, supervises
Bio-rights conservation activities in Pemalang, Java: silvo-fisheries system (l) and beach forest,
forming a protective belt (r). Photos: Pieter van Eijk

Bio-rights in theory and practice
89
overall activities. A finance manager and secretary manage financial and organisational matters,
while other group members are responsible for the preparation of planting activities, managing
development initiatives, ensuring the integrity of conservation actions and even managing public
relations.
Concrete project plans were developed at the group level. All the groups agreed to focus
their conservation activities on rehabilitating mangroves and beach trees. Species planned
for replanting included Rhizophora mucronata, R. apiculata, Avicennia sp., Hibiscus tiliaceus,
Terminalia cattapa, Callophyllum innophyllum and Casuarina maritima. To maintain the functionality
of the aquaculture system, on which local communities had become very dependent after the
disappearance of the mangroves, it was decided not to replant the entire pond area. Instead it
was agreed to restrict planting activities to the edges of the ponds and plant a limited number of
trees in the middle. As such a ‘silvo-fisheries’ system was developed, integrating the aquaculture
functions of the ponds with the ecosystem services provided by the replanted mangroves. Plans
were made to fully restore the mangrove forest along a 50-100 metre wide stretch of shrimp
ponds at the sea’s edge, so as to develop a buffer zone, protecting against erosion and storm
damage. Beach trees were planted on elevated patches of sandy soil along the coastline.
The selection of appropriate development activities, which would be supported in return for
the conservation services provided by the community, emerged from an intensive process of
community discussions and capacity building. The community groups initially identified their own
development needs and potential concrete actions that could meet these needs. The involved
NGOs and local governments also suggested a number of options that had proved successful
elsewhere, including crab-breeding, seaweed farming and production of shrimp paste (terasi).
Several of these activities were introduced, piloted and discussed during extensive community
workshops. This process led each group to identify a number of development activities that they
would to like to experiment with. The Local Programme Manager was responsible for ensuring
the sustainability of these activities. Efforts were also made to encourage activities directly linked
to the mangrove services that were restored under the conservation component. Given the good
working relationship with the Local Programme Manager and the extensive contacts with local
communities, it was deemed appropriate to provide micro-credits through one-off instalments at
the start of project implementation. The Bio-rights deals initially spanned a contractual period of
2-3 years, but some of these were extended once the interventions proved successful.
As the conservation activities entirely focused on reforestation, the selected indicators for
success related to the number of seedlings planted and their survival rate after planting. It was
agreed that survival rates in excess of 75% after three years would lead to conversion of micro-
credits into definitive payments. Lower survival rates would require reimbursement of part or all
of the micro-credit, the proportion to be returned being related to the proportion of surviving
seedlings.
8.4 Contract development
Bio-rights contracts were signed with the respective community groups, village heads and other
community leaders. Representatives of national government agencies were also involved, to
ensure mainstreaming of the project with national initiatives aimed at increasing the sustainable
management of coastal resources and to create a sense of national ownership over the project.
Efforts were made to increase the visibility of the project by attracting regional and national
media attention.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
90
8.5 Project implementation
The initial awareness-raising and training activities initiated during the project development phase
were intensified during the early stage of project implementation. These trainings, organised by
the Local Programme Manager and Wetlands International (as the Bio-rights Project Manager),
focused on building capacity to successful implement the development activities initiated under
the project. The group members had already undergone intensive training on, and acquired
experience with, the technical aspects of mangrove rehabilitation. Therefore the environmental
training component, rather than building environmental rehabilitation skills, focused on
awareness raising, aiming to generate fuller insights into the relationship between mangrove-
related ecosystem services and community livelihoods.
Community groups organised regular meetings (initially every week, later twice a month) to plan
their conservation and development activities, to distribute tasks and responsibilities among
individuals and to reflect on previous activities. The Local Programme Manager facilitated this
process. The agreed conservation and development initiatives were implemented in parallel. In
Parallel to the Bio-rights projects in Pemalang, approximately 150 kilometres to the west, a small-
scale Bio-rights project was implemented in Indramayu district. The project site was located on a
narrow strip of degraded and abandoned shrimp ponds, situated between the sea and the highway
that connects Jakarta and Surabaya. The project was very similar to the activities in Pemalang, in that
it involved intense capacity building, awareness raising and technical support. High-level government
officials provided explicit support for the planned initiative and local communities enthusiastically
engaged in implementation. The project was formally launched with the official presentation of a
mangroves monument in the replanting site, followed by the planting of a mangrove belt, covering
approximately 2 hectares. Initially, despite major difficulties with erosion and storms damaging the
seedlings, the rehabilitation was successful, with the quick formation of a dense and well-growing
mangrove stand. Yet more recently, several years after ending of the project, more than half of the
mangroves were clear-felled and replaced by small seaside restaurants and shops. The monument has
been damaged and is covered with graffiti. Garbage is covering the area. Large numbers of visitors
visit the muddy shoreline, which has, once again, become severely affected by erosion. A concrete sea
Box 10. The failed case of Indramayu. What went wrong?
Tourism development in the former Bio-rights site in Indramayu. Photos: Pieter van Eijk.

Bio-rights in theory and practice
91
total, 150,000 mangrove seedlings were planted, covering approximately 50 hectares of land.
Mangrove seedlings were also planted along the edges and in the centre of shrimp ponds,
following the silvo-fisheries approach (discussed above), at a density of approximately 1.200
seedlings per hectare. The coastal belt, protecting inland aquaculture systems and villages
against the sea, was planted at a density of 5.000 seedlings per hectare. Following the technical
trainings, the community groups adopted a range of development activities, with support from
the Local Programme Manager and several other organisations involved in the project.
Flexibility was maintained as much as possible in this process, recognising the need to
continuously adjust development activities to local site conditions and community needs. For
example, chicken farming activities were quickly abandoned after it was realised that they were
not attractive from an economic perspective. Prices for chicken meat and eggs were too low
and projected to further decrease in the future. As a result it was decided to develop goat
farming activities instead. In the course of the project, community groups regularly assessed
development activities and, where needed, improved techniques. The secretary of each
community group documented both conservation and development outcomes on a bimonthly
basis, so as to ensure full insight into the progress of different activities. This has improved
defence has been built by government to avoid damage to housing and the nearby highway. In contrast,
the mangroves that remain are in good condition, harbouring many birds, fish and crustaceans. The
developments in Indramayu raise a number of intriguing questions. What went wrong? Why did the
project in Indramayu fail to deliver long-term sustainability, whereas the Pemalang cases managed to
do so? What differences explain failure in one site and success in the other?
A close look at local site conditions, explains a number of differences. The land in Indramayu, is
government owned. This means that local communities have no full ownership over resources and land
use. The project tried to address this issue by incorporating local government in project implementation.
Initially, this worked very well, with officials becoming involved and endorsing the project. Over
time, however, the governance proved too weak to ensure sustained government support to project
activities. When new government officials were appointed, aspirations with regard to the use of the
project area changed. Some officials were supportive of large-scale coastal infrastructure development
activities, including the development of restaurant and recreation facilities in the replanting site. Some
of these activities were undertaken by community members who were initially involved in project
implementation. Mostly, however, investors from outside reclaimed the area, without no intervention
from the relevant government bodies. A driving force in degradation of the area was the economic
value of the land. Initially very low (after the collapse of shrimp production), land values have risen
sharply over time, in line with increasing tourism development. Growing numbers of people visit the
North coasts of Java for recreational purposes, particularly on weekends. This has contributed to an
increased demand for associated facilities. As a result, alternative uses for the land targeted under
the project have just become too attractive to compete with the project’s conservation objectives.
The only means of sustaining the replanting sites would have been strict enforcement of the project’s
conservation plan by government (which hasn’t happened) or the provision of continued payments
to compete with the opportunity costs of other activities such as infrastructure development. In the
absence of either mechanism, site conditions have proved just too extreme to allow for a sustainable
Bio-rights project in the area.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
92
the planning skills of community members and increased awareness of the direct and indirect
results of the conservation and development activities. Bio-rights activities started small, with
only several people involved. In subsequent years, additional groups were formed and new
Bio-rights deals were established. As a result, between 1998 and 2005, several different Bio-
rights projects were in different stages of implementation at any given point. This facilitated the
adjustment of new Bio-rights initiatives to lessons learnt from other projects ongoing in the same
area. Besides the ongoing Bio-rights activities in Pesantren village, the approach has also been
introduced in other nearby communities.
8.6 Project outcomes
Monitoring activities performed by the local community and the Local Programme Manager,
demonstrated seedling survival rates well above 75 percent upon termination of the contractual
period, leading to conversion of all micro-credits into definitive payments. All the Bio-rights projects
in this area were completed several years ago and as a result - although exact quantification
of long-term project results is still underway - a comprehensive description of the long-term
conservation and development outcomes can be provided.
Approximately 10 years after the planting of the first seedlings, the mangroves have grown into
impressive trees, reaching a height of 4-8 metres. Beach trees have generally grown at an even
faster rate, with many trees exceeding 10 metres. The protective buffer has developed into
a dense stretch of forest, with seedling recruitment taking place naturally. The silvo-fisheries
system has also developed successfully: the trees provide shade to parts of the ponds and
the leaves deposited in the water enhance the soil substrate. The community performs regular
maintenance works, including thinning of trees and pruning of rhizophores, to adjust the system
to their needs. In just a few years the coastal area has benefited significantly from the enhanced
ecosystem conditions. The number of commercially attractive fish species has increased from 2
to 6. Shrimp and crab populations have recovered from near-extinction. The coastal belt is home
to a wealth of birds, many of which have disappeared elsewhere in Java as a result of pesticide
use and bird trapping practices. Rehabilitation has also contributed to the restoration of geo-
hydrological balances in the region: sediments deposited within the mangrove buffer provide
protection against high tides, battering waves and associated erosion. Submersion of ponds
and settlements during storms and exceptional floods no longer occurs and land accretion is
now slowly taking place. Newly formed sandbars and mudflats are being planted with trees,
which in turn enables further accretion of land.
Local communities have benefited in a variety of ways from the revival of mangrove-related
ecosystem services. The reappearance of commercially attractive fish species increases and
diversifies their incomes. Similarly, crab and shrimp harvests have increased, although stocks
are not as high as in the first years of intense shrimp production. Initially, the community suffered
great difficulties with harvesting the shrimps, as the numerous mangrove trees prevented the
full exploitation of the pond system. New and more efficient methods of harvesting are now
being developed, e.g., by replacing nets with ingenious trap systems. Although considered a
nuisance by the local community, the difficulties experienced with harvesting the shrimps and
fish probably make an important contribution to sustainability, as the carrying capacity of the
pond systems is less likely to be damaged by intense exploitation. The mangroves also provide
important timber resources, such as poles for construction purposes, with smaller branches
serving as fuel wood for cooking. Part of the wood is derived after thinning of the seedlings, 6-8

Bio-rights in theory and practice
93
years after planting. Sometimes all the mangroves within a certain area are felled in a certain
area, followed by replanting with new seedlings. The coastal belt is maintained entirely intact and
managed as a coastal reserve. Part of the fodder required for the goat farming is derived from
the mangroves. Branches with fresh leaves are regularly chopped off and provided to the goats.
Their manure is applied to the ponds as a natural fertiliser. Thus the ecological cycle is once
more complete. Small-scale bird catching activities for the cage bird industry supplement the
income generated from fishing and farming activities, although it is not known if this is performed
in a sustainable manner. Following the restoration measures, community groups have noted
a significant decrease in the incidence of shrimp disease, which has contributed to increased
harvests and enabled the development of a system with limited use of chemicals.
The mitigation of flooding risk and the reversal of land erosion has greatly reduced the vulnerability
of the community groups involved. After years of losing land they are currently gaining about
10-15 metres of land annually. Formerly, the floods caused huge losses of fish and shrimps that
were washed out to the sea, and inflicted significant damage to human property. Currently such
damage is virtually nonexistent.
After years of piloting, the community groups have successfully used the micro-credits to develop
a whole range of economic activities, complementing the income generated from traditional
activities, such as fisheries and agriculture. Most income generating activities have been
adjusted to the ecosystem services provided by the mangrove system. Crabs, for example, are
harvested from the mangroves and fattened in cages before being sold at a good price in local
markets. Similarly, the community has developed a system for producing sea weed (Garcelaria
spec.), used by the cosmetics industry. Sea weed production has become one of the major
sources of income in the area and also makes a positive contribution to pond ecology as the
plants provide a niche for various aquatic species and oxygenate the water. Agricultural activities
developed under the project have met with varying success. Some activities such as chicken
farming proved to have insufficient long-term economic potential and were replaced with other
farming activities.
More research is needed to exactly quantify the benefits of these conservation and development
activities upon local community livelihoods. Initial rapid inventories indicate an increase of 300
Bio-rights development activities in Pesantren: sea weed production and goat farming.
Photos: Pieter van Eijk.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
94
percent in household incomes since the start of the project, as well as a significant decrease
in vulnerability to extreme events such as floods and storms, and (projected) future climate
change. The percentage of school going children has increased significantly. Other indicators for
improved livelihoods include the proportion of villagers owning TVs, bicycles and motorbikes,
all of which have increased considerably. The project can thus be considered a success from
both an environmental and socio-economic perspective. Nonetheless, community members
have indicated a number of challenges that they faced during project implementation, which
were experienced as hampering development opportunities. While the project provided much
support to the development of income generating activities, community facilitators only paid
limited attention to developing appropriate marketing chains for these products. As a result,
communities were forced to sell their products at a low price to retailers, instead of earning
additional money by reaching end-users. Particularly in the sea weed business, community
groups miss out on a lucrative business opportunity. Although matters have improved
significantly since the formation of official corporations, communities - several years after project
implementation - still feel that they don’t have optimal access to markets. Limited capacity to
jointly save money, as a basis for developing new economic initiatives, was also mentioned
as a development constraint. Community groups felt that there were no internal mechanisms
to enable a durable and reliable savings scheme. By incorporating a revolving fund into the
approach and by providing appropriate training on community-based savings, the project could
have anticipated these needs.
In recognition of the successful project outcomes, Pesantren community received some additional
Bio-rights support in 2005. In return for the implementation of rehabilitation activities, the community
received funding for the establishment of a ‘community mangrove centre’. This centre, managed
by Pesantren community and situated in the middle of the ponds, is used as a field training centre
on mangrove management, hosting schoolchildren, community groups, NGOs and government
departments. This centre is also used by the group itself as a venue for meetings, accommodation of
visitors and festivities such as weddings. Maintenance costs are covered through a small lease fee
that is paid by users of the centre.
Mangrove training centre in Pesantren village. Photo: Nyoman Suriadiputra.
Box 11. The Pemalang mangrove management training centre

Bio-rights in theory and practice
95
Although the Bio-rights contracts formally ended in 2005, communities have continued with
rehabilitation since then. Convinced of the benefits of reforestation, the groups still meet once
every two weeks to discuss new rehabilitation plans. In 2008 a further 120 hectares of barren
ponds were planted. Future activities will aim at maintaining the restoration works and expansion
of the coastal mangrove belt, and the further accretion of the coastline. Community members
have also continued to cooperate over development activities. The groups have formally
registered themselves as cooperatives and have slowly expanded over time. This has enabled
effective cooperation in fishing and crop harvesting activities and the marketing of products, and
has facilitated the development of new income generating activities. For example, the group
has set up a thriving nursery, which sells mangrove seedlings to community groups elsewhere.
The efforts of the community groups involved have not gone unnoticed. In 2002 the national
government of Indonesia awarded the communities in Pemalang the ‘Green Award’, a prize for
local community excellence in environmental restoration. Through media coverage and effective
sharing of experiences with specific target audiences, coastal areas in Pemalang have become
best-practice sites for sustainable management of degraded coastal areas. Communities in
surrounding villages have adopted both restoration and sustainable development activities
without external incentives. The approach has also been replicated elsewhere in Indonesia,
including the Green Coast project (see Case II). In recognition of the opportunities demonstrated
by the Pemalang projects, a small exhibition and training centre has been built in Pesantren
village, which regularly receives schoolchildren and national and international delegations
of government officials, NGOs and donors (see Box 11). Leading community members are
regularly requested to provide technical advice and training to rehabilitation sites elsewhere.
Several community members have recently been hired as Local Programme Managers to guide
mangrove rehabilitation works in Aceh Darussalam province, Sumatra.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
96
LESSONS LEARNED:
+ The division of tasks within community groups and a focus on documenting project outcomes
created responsibility, awareness and a feeling of project ownership among group members.
+ The adjustment of development activities to the ecosystem services generated by conservation
actions provided additional incentives for the long-term sustenance of rehabilitation sites.
+ Creating awareness of the benefits of environmental conservation to local livelihoods increased
long-term sustainability.
+ Extensive training and trust building in advance of project implementation contributed to overall
project success.
+ Active dissemination of project experiences to different stakeholder groups facilitated regional
and national replication of the approach.
- Restricted access to regional markets and limited capacity to develop market chains inhibited
community development.
- Limited capacity to generate financial resources within the community groups inhibited income
diversification and development after the project implementation period.
! More intense scientific monitoring during project implementation would have facilitated
mainstreaming of the approach in regional and national policies.
! Starting small-scale and allocating sufficient time for project implementation was a key to
success.
+ = ‘positive lesson learned’, - = ‘negative’ lesson learned, ! = key point

Bio-rights in theory and practice
97
9. Case II. Restoration of Tsunami-impacted
coastal areas on Sumatra, Indonesia
9.1 Introduction
On 26 December 2004, following a powerful earthquake (force 9,1 - 9,3 on the Richter scale),
a massive tsunami hit the coasts of many countries in South and South-east Asia. The tsunami
caused extensive damage to infrastructure and human property, and claimed approximately
230,000 lives. Damage to the environment was significant as well. The waves swallowed
entire stretches of mangrove, sand dunes and beaches, destroyed coral reefs and salinated
inland water bodies, causing severe disruption of ecosystems throughout the region. Although
heavily damaged, well-functioning ecosystems played a critical role in reducing the impact
of the tsunami. Sand dunes functioned as physical barriers against the pounding waves and
intact stretches of mangroves absorbed the power of the waves and prevented them from
proceeding far inland. Natural ecosystems also provided essential products and services, such
as construction materials and food, that enabled people to survive in the critical weeks following
the tsunami. Despite the important role of natural ecosystems in mitigating the destructive
impact of the tsunami, reconstruction works almost entirely focused on rebuilding the housing
of tsunami victims and on ‘hard-engineering’ reconstruction works. Ecosystem restoration
was rarely considered, and when it was, the authorities often lacked the necessary technical
capacity. Many of the mangrove restoration works that were initiated in the region in response
to the tsunami were therefore unsuccessful. The wrong planting techniques were adopted and
local communities were often insufficiently involved in planning and decision making.
Recognising the limited focus on ecosystem restoration and the many challenges faced by
NGOs and governmental agencies in responding to accomplish nature-based disaster relief,
Wetlands International, and several other conservation and development organisations
initiated the Green Coast project. This tsunami response project, funded by Oxfam Novib,
aimed to increase coastal resilience through community-based ecosystem restoration linked
to sustainable development of local communities. The project targeted coastal areas in India,
The project in brief:
Objective: ecological restoration of tsunami impacted areas coupled to sustainable community
development. Where? Coastal areas in Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam and Nias, Sumatra (Indonesia).
Implemented by: Wetlands International (lead partner), IUCN, WWF, BothEnds and 31 local NGOS
and 29 independent community groups. Funded by: Oxfam Novib. Implementation period: 2005-
2007 (Phase I), 2007-2008 (Phase II). Budget Phase I: € 850.000 (for Bio-rights activities), overall
budget (targeting five countries) € 4.300.000. Budget Phase II: € 450.000 (for Bio-rights activities in
Indonesia), overall budget (targeting Indonesia) € 1.300.000. Main accomplishments: rehabilitation of
1.000 hectares of mangrove and beach forest in 70 project sites; support to sustainable development
activities for 5.000 people; improved livelihoods resulting from improved ecosystem conditions of
60.000 people. More information: www.Greencoasts.org.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
98
Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia. A small-grant facility was developed to support a
large number of local NGOs and CBOs to implement small-scale (€ 5,000-25,000) community
projects targeted at ecosystem restoration and livelihood improvements. The small-grant
initiatives in Indonesia were implemented through the Bio-rights approach, as a follow-up to
successful Bio-rights initiatives in Pemalang, Java. This case description focuses on the Green
Coast experiences from Indonesia.
9.2 Project initiation
Following the 2004 tsunami, several conservation and development organisations came
together to identify how environmental aspects could be included in disaster risk reduction
strategies. They considered a conservation focus important in addressing the tremendous
environment damage that was inflicted by the tsunami. At the same time, they recognised the
great importance of environmental conservation and restoration for creating resilient coastal
communities. Ecosystem restoration was thus considered a critical aspect of disaster relief.
Oxfam Novib, which was involved in these discussions and which played an important role in the
disbursal of emergency aid money provided by the Dutch public, recognised these needs. The
organisation contributed € 4.300.000 for a major coastal ecosystem restoration and sustainable
development initiative and the Green Coast project, implemented under the lead of Wetlands
International, together with IUCN, WWF and Both ENDS, was born. Wetlands International -
Indonesia which had gained considerable experience with community-based conservation of
coastal ecosystems and had piloted the Bio-rights approach in the late 1990s (see Case I)
decided to upscale this approach in the Green Coast activities in Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam
and Nias provinces, Sumatra.
Tsunami damage in Banda Aceh, Sumatra. Photo: Pieter van Eijk.

Bio-rights in theory and practice
99
The Green Coast partners concluded that a small-scale, community-level approach was likely
to be most effective in accomplishing conservation and development objectives, and to ensure
the involvement of community members in environmental restoration. To accommodate this,
it was decided to establish a small grants fund to enable a large number of local NGOs and
community-based organisations to implement small-scale initiatives. The first step undertaken by
the project was a major inventory of the project area This rapid survey mapped the environmental
damage inflicted by the tsunami and sought to assess options for rehabilitating the affected
ecosystems. It also assessed community perceptions about engaging in ecosystem restoration
and considered the overall suitability of potential project sites within the region. From August
to October 2005 assessment teams, consisting of ecologists and socio-economists, visited as
many coastal areas as possible in Aceh and Nias provinces (and also outside Indonesia in other
target countries), to find out where small grant initiatives could be implemented and to identify
specific conservation and development needs. Project sites were prioritised, according to their
conservation values, the community’s needs, the potential contribution of restored ecosystems
to improving livelihoods and community motivation for engaging in a restoration project.
With relief aid for Aceh representing several billion euros and with hundreds of reconstruction
agencies and NGOs active in the region, there were considerable risks of various restoration
objectives coming into conflict with each other. The Indonesian government established the
planning agency BRR as the regional body to coordinate all disaster relief efforts. The Green
Coasts project worked closely with BRR to incorporate its conservation and development
objectives in the overall reconstruction plan for Aceh. Through workshops and multi-sectoral
meetings, BRR and other stakeholders were familiarised with Green Coast goals and with the
need to incorporate environmental aspects in reconstruction activities. These meetings also
enabled the building of a large network of governmental agencies, local and international NGOs
and community representatives, which provided the project with the right mandate as well as an
enabling environment to get started in the region. The network also enabled the selection of 31
local NGOs and 29 CBOs, which were appointed as the Local Programme Managers for no less
than 70 small grant Bio-rights initiatives. Finding a sufficient number of local organisations with
the right development and conservation capacity proved a great challenge. The Green Coast
partners, in the role of the Bio-rights Project Manager, addressed this by setting up an intensive
training programme for selected organisations. The programme focused on familiarising Local
Programme Managers with the Bio-rights approach itself, as well as on techniques for ecosystem
rehabilitation and approaches to sustainable livelihood development. In addition, various Local
Programme Managers that had previously implemented Bio-rights in Pemalang, central Java
(see case I) were hired to replicate the approach in project sites in Aceh and to provide technical
support to the Local Programme Managers hired on-site. The project also recruited a number
of community members from Pemalang, who, after intensive training were installed as Local
Programme Managers in a number of villages.
9.3 Project development
A total of 60 local organisations acting as Local Programme Managers, together with Wetlands
International and other consortium partners proceeded to develop 30 small (€ 5,000 to 10,000),
33 medium-sized (€ 10,000-20,.000) and 7 large (€ 35,000- 50,000) Bio-rights initiatives. First,
community meetings were organised in the selected project sites to explain the Bio-rights
approach and highlight the multiple objectives of the project. Subsequently, community groups of
15-40 interested people were established. Many communities were initially hesitant to participate

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
100
as they were hardly motivated to become involved in conservation activities as a precondition
for receiving development support as other donors were providing such development support
for free. By raising awareness about the importance of restoring mangroves, beach forests and
other coastal ecosystems as a protective buffer against the sea, many communities were finally
convinced to participate. However, some of the initial scepticism about the social and economic
benefits of environmental conservation remained.
Workshops and consultations on the community group level arrived at a concrete Bio-rights
plan for each initiative. The conservation actions identified by the different stakeholders included
the construction of a protective coastal mangrove belt. Agreement was reached on the various
mangrove species to be planted, including Rhizophora apiculata, R. mucronata, and Avicennia
sp, among others. Similarly, planting plans were made for protective buffers on dry land, involving
Casuarina maritima, Pandanus sp. Hibiscus tiliaceus and Callophyllum inophylum. Many coastal
areas were already severely degraded before the 2004 tsunami. Hundreds of thousands of
hectares of mangrove, for example, had been converted into tambak ponds for shrimp and milk
fish aquaculture in the 1980s and 1990s (also see the description under Case I). This had led
to significant biodiversity loss and vulnerability as a result of erosion and saline intrusion. These
problems were addressed by introducing a silvo-fisheries system with mangroves planted along
the fringes and in the centre of the shrimp ponds. This had proved highly successful in previous
coastal restoration initiatives in central Java (see Case I). Other selected conservation measures
included the establishment of marine protected areas, the banning of unsustainable fishery
methods and the development of management plans for the new lagoons that had been created
by the tsunami. Next, the different stakeholders agreed on sustainable development activities,
which were supported in return for community involvement in the restoration measures. The
community groups themselves played a key role in the selection of appropriate measures, by
reflecting on their most urgent development needs in the wake of the damage inflicted by the
tsunami. The Bio-rights Manager and the Local Programme Managers suggested a number of
additional community development options which had proved successful in earlier initiatives
elsewhere. This led to the identification of a variety of site-specific development activities, ranging
from the procurement of goods, such as fishing vessels and motor cycles (to re-establish access
to resources and markets), to the initiation of new income generating activities, such as handicraft
production and the development of enterprises (as a substitute for day-to-day activities or as
an alternative to unsustainable practices). Particular care was taken to ensure that the selected
development activities would not negatively affect the environment or cause overexploitation of
natural resources.
Wetlands International, as the Bio-rights Project Manager, decided not to provide the entire
Bio-rights payment in advance. Instead, it was agreed that community groups would receive
the payments in three instalments: one at the start of the project, one halfway through the
project (after the implementation of several initial conservation measures) and one at the end of
the project, upon the final delivery of conservation services. This was not as a result of mistrust
towards the local communities, but rather due to the unfamiliarity of the Green Coast consortium
with the Local Programme Managers that were hired. Each individual local organisation’s
capabilities of successful project management were insufficiently known; so to reduce financial
risks, it was considered desirable to establish a multiple-payment scheme. Responding to donor
requirements, a project duration of approximately three years was agreed. The monitoring of
overall project outcome and subsequent micro-credit conversion was set to occur towards the
end of the project. Seedlings survival rate was selected as a main indicator of success for the
re-greening activities. It was agreed with local communities that survival rates exceeding 75%

Bio-rights in theory and practice
101
towards the end of the contractual period would result in the conversion of the micro-credits into
definitive payments. Lower survival rates would result in the reimbursement of a proportion of the
micro-credits provided. It was agreed that project monitoring would take place under the lead
of the Bio-rights Project Manager, supported by the community groups and Local Programme
Managers. The overall project plan and associated payment conditions were consolidated in an
activity plan containing concrete actions, overall sustainability criteria and obligations with regard
to the provision and attendance of capacity building and awareness raising activities.
The development process took place in close cooperation with planning agency BRR and other
relevant stakeholders by involving them in consultation meetings and by providing regular updates
on progress and plans. This enabled mainstreaming of the individual small-grant initiatives with
the overall reconstruction works and policies.
9.4 Contract development
Working together with the community groups, the project plans were formalised into contractual
arrangements. By involving community group leaders, village elders and existing local natural
resource management committees in this process, and by providing them with a facilitating
role, the formal status of the contracts was enhanced. In some project sites the Panglima Laot,
a traditional community-based fisheries resource management committee for Aceh province,
which has existed for centuries, played a particularly important role in facilitating the negotiation
process. The committee has extensive experience in working with fishery-dependent communities
and is well respected in the region. Contracts were signed with individual community groups at
official ceremonies attended by local officials and other important stakeholders.
9.5 Project implementation
Project implementation started with an intense capacity building and awareness raising
programme. This programme was organised by the Local Programme Managers, but as a
result of the limited capacity of some local NGOs, Wetlands International and other consortium
partners also played an important role by developing and presenting training modules. Capacity
building activities focused on the technical aspects of implementing the conservation and
development measures. These included nursery development, planting and tending techniques
for reforestation, and the development and implementation of management plans for marine
protected areas. Development-oriented trainings introduced new techniques for agriculture and
fisheries and provided capacity for the development of small enterprises such as shops and
small food-processing factories. Linked to these technical trainings, awareness raising activities
were organised, highlighting the importance of sound environmental management for local
livelihoods. Particular attention was paid to creating understanding about the protective function
of mangroves and beach forests against extreme events, such as storms and tsunamis, and
the role of coastal ecosystems in supporting fisheries. The role of intact coastal wetlands in
protecting local livelihoods was particularly well understood, because the devastating tsunami
had confronted communities with their extreme vulnerability due to earlier environmental
degradation. Besides workshops and trainings, the project established several field-training
centres to demonstrate sustainable fisheries approaches and techniques for ecosystem
rehabilitation.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
102
Next, the actual conservation and development activities were initiated. Reforestation activities
started with the development of nurseries, which propagated approximately 1,500,000 mangrove
trees and 350,000 beach trees. Over one hundred community groups in 54 sites planted trees
over a total of 1000 hectares of land,. Mangroves were planted with the objective of creating
dense forest stretches as protective buffers along the coastline, as well as to create a silvo-
fisheries system in areas intensively used for aquaculture. The project established six community-
based marine protected areas, involving communities in the development of management plans
and in patrolling activities. A second phase of Green Coast was implemented in 2007-2008.
Under this project an additional 587 hectares of mangroves were planted in 16 project sites.
These projects were implemented with the Local Programme Managers and communities that
demonstrated commitment and achieved high-quality conservation during the first phase of
Green Coast. Several phase I projects received some additional support for maintaining the
planting sites in the vulnerable months directly after termination of the project.
The development activities that were supported differed greatly among the individual projects,
depending on the specific requirements of the communities involved. Loans were provided at
both the community level and to individuals within communities. In most cases they related
to the purchase of goods such as fishing equipment, livestock and seeds; but in some cases
support was also provided for more complex development activities, such as the establishment of
sustainable aquaculture systems and enterprises for food processing and handicraft production.
Coastal mangrove buffer created in Aceh under the Green Coast project. Photo: Pieter van
Eijk.

Bio-rights in theory and practice
103
To increase the sustainability of the development aspects of the project, it was decided in the
second phase of Green Coast to use the micro-credits to create revolving funds within the
communities. These funds enabled communities to borrow money for sustainable development
activities, but required reimbursement of these loans so that other community members could
borrow at a later stage. As a result, development activities do not end when the micro-credits are
converted into one-off payments, but instead can be sustained for as long as the communities
maintain the revolving funds.
The Bio-rights Project Manager monitored the overall progress of the conservation and
development activities through regular field visits and discussions with the Local Programme
Managers and communities. This enabled the provision of technical advice and the monitoring of
compliance with formal obligations throughout the project. The Bio-rights initiatives implemented
under the Green Coast project are part of a larger framework of activities and a major component
of the project was dedicated to policy development and advocacy. Regular meetings and
workshops with other stakeholders in the region were organised to build awareness of the
importance of environmental rehabilitation as part of the overall reconstruction works and to
adjust planned activities to each other. Attempts were made to mitigate the impact of other
reconstruction works on the project’s activities, while at the same time building momentum for
the up-scaling of environmental rehabilitation efforts.
9.6 Project outcome
The project’s outcomes were monitored upon termination of phase I, and one year later so as
to acquire insights into longer-term outcomes. Phase II was still in progress when this case
study was drafted and only intermediary results from this phase are available. Reforestation
activities performed under phase I were very successful with average seedling survival rates well
above 75%. There were, however, significant differences between, as well as within, replanting
sites. In some places cattle grazing and trampling destroyed large numbers of seedlings. Some
communities constructed fencing to protect against this hazard, but in most sites this was
considered too costly. Instead, most groups decided to restock sites that were destroyed by
animals. Similarly, barnacles, crabs, insects and various plant diseases caused locally high
mortality rates. The nurseries proved sufficiently productive to enable replacement of seedlings
Mangrove nursery established under the Green Coast project. Photo: Pieter van Eijk.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
104
that were affected. In some areas erosion caused seedlings to be washed away and elsewhere,
sand accretion buried and subsequently killed seedlings. Some communities were able to adapt
to these challenges by relocating planting sites in time, but in other cases it was too late to find
alternative locations. In December 2007 flash floods hit Aceh, sweeping away tens of thousands
of newly planted seedlings. Although this was clearly a force majeure situation provided for in
the contract signed with the communities, the groups demonstrated dedication by replanting
these seedlings on a voluntary basis. Despite the fact that disaster risks were considered in
the selection of project sites and conservation activities, the project did not sufficiently identify
how to cope with unexpected events: no alternative conservation scenarios were identified that
would enable easy adaptation to unexpected circumstances, nor were there sufficient resources
allocated for emergency situations.
Replanting activities were unsuccessful in a small number of projects as a result of the limited
technical capacity of several of the Local Programme Managers. Some groups, for example,
planted mangroves on the beach or omitted to remove the plastic bags in which the seedlings
were propagated. More intensive training and screening of local NGOs as Local Programme
Managers could have avoided these problems. Considering the short timeframe available and
recognising the difficult post-disaster conditions, however, it can be concluded that the project
was generally successful in optimising recruitment of capable Local Programme Managers. In
the process of selection of project sites in phase II, the capacity of Local Programme Managers
(as well as the level of commitment of communities involved) was closely considered: only those
Local Programme Managers that demonstrated sound implementation capacity were eligible for
funding for additional projects or for an extension of support for phase I activities.
It was found that the Local Programme Managers recruited from Pemalang community in central
Java - where Bio-rights was implemented several years before - were the most successful
in delivering successful conservation outcomes. Their thorough practical knowledge and their
experience in having been participants in a Bio-rights project themselves, proved to be of
great value in support of community restoration activities. One drawback was that these Local
Programme Managers were recruited from another region and, as a result, lacked familiarity
with local site conditions and local cultural practices. In some villages (particularly those subject
to political unrest in the pre-tsunami era) this led to some initial tensions and mistrust. Without
exception, however, this eased off early in the project and the shared background as fisherman
Duck farming as a sustainable development activity. Photo: Pieter van Eijk.

Bio-rights in theory and practice
105
and fishpond owners provided a sound basis for cooperation. Another factor that influenced
success was the extent of guidance provided by the Local Programme Manager. Local
Programme Managers permanently based within the target villages were much more successful
in delivering high conservation outcomes than those based elsewhere who only visited the
community intermittently.
Despite the efforts that were made to adjust conservation actions to other reconstruction
activities, in several cases reforestation activities were negatively affected by the construction of
barrages and fishponds within or near to planting sites. Subsequent monitoring of project sites,
approximately one year after project implementation, demonstrated that most sites remain in good
condition, despite some additional mortality, usually as a result of erosion and cattle browsing,.
In response, Green Coast II has allocated some additional resources for additional protective
measures in the most vulnerable sites. It is expected that the seedlings planted under phase I
will soon reach a stage at which their vulnerability to environmental variables will be significantly
reduced and that further (natural) regeneration will take place without further interventions.
The (natural) recruitment of several new mangrove species in a number of replanting sites is a
promising development in this respect. The main future threat to the replanting sites remains
disturbance from anthropogenic activities. Future monitoring will demonstrate the interest that
local communities show in continuing to maintain the replanting sites. Other conservation
activities implemented under the project, including the establishment of community-based
marine protected areas and the involvement of local communities in the management of existing
protected areas, were generally successful. In some areas, local fishermen have already reported
the reappearance of fish species that had previously disappeared from the area as a result
of over-fishing. Future surveys should be performed to monitor the long-term spin-offs and
sustainability of these measures, as well as the revival of ecosystem services associated with
reforestation measures, including biodiversity, protection against erosion and buffering of wave
and storm power.
Despite the success of the conservation interventions implemented under the project, it was
found that many additional actions are still required to accomplish real, sustainable community-
based coastal resource management. Despite being avid tree planters, some communities
were, for example, found to still use large quantities of pesticides in their fisheries systems and
to intensively hunt water birds, while others still collect sea turtle eggs from nearby beaches. It
was concluded that future Bio-rights activities will have a much greater positive environmental
impact if communities are to be given responsibility for a large range of environmental factors,
rather than just engaging in restoration works. Green Coast made a first start in such a holistic
approach by also setting up a number of community-based protected areas, but more efforts
will be required to promote full sustainability.
The outcome of the various development activities initiated under the project differed greatly
among project sites. Success stories include the development of enterprises for processing and
marketing food items, which led to an increase of incomes of between 10 and 1,000 percent.
Similarly, agricultural activities developed under the project significantly complemented traditional
fisheries-based livelihoods. One farmer investing his € 200 micro-credit in goat farming activities
has managed, in less than three years, to increase the total value of his goat business to € 2,000.
Other development activities failed, including various projects aimed at setting up sustainable
aquaculture as well as some of the farming activities. The capacity of the Local Programme
Manager to appropriately support community-development actions proved to be an important
determinant of success. The occurrence of extreme events was also an important factor, with

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
106
flash floods destroying aquaculture and farming systems on several occasions. Some projects
were overly ambitious in their development objectives and were unable to deliver the desired
project outcomes within the budget and timeframe available. One group, for example, which
aimed to restore a fishpond that was destroyed by the tsunami, concluded towards the end
of the project that the (human) resources available were insufficient to make the pond system
operational again. Projects aimed at providing support for the procurement of goods (i.e. fishing
gear, livestock, seeds) to individual members within community groups were generally successful,
leading to a small but durable supplement to their daily income.
Project monitoring also sought to acquire insights into community attitudes and perceptions
about sustainable resource management. It was found that awareness of the need for mangrove
conservation greatly increased as a result of project activities and, in many cases, initial scepticism
among communities disappeared in the course of the project. As in earlier mangrove restoration
projects elsewhere in Indonesia, it is likely that the positive attitude towards conservation and
restoration of coastal ecosystems will further increase once the socio-economic benefits of
their conservation activities become more visible in the form of increased fish stocks, reduced
erosion and other ecosystem services. Still, the evaluation also found that many communities
tend to stick to former unsustainable management approaches such as intensive pesticide
use and overexploitation. Three years has proved insufficient to change such well-established
practices. In future projects, Green Coast will work towards full sustainability within and
outside the selected project sites. Awareness raising will be an important pillar as well as the
development of demonstration sites that show how sustainably managed land can contribute
to improved livelihoods. One such demonstration site has already been developed, highlighting
the possibilities for sustainable aquaculture development. The site currently serves as an on-the-
ground training centre, demonstrating the benefits of ecological restoration. Similarly, exchanges
with community members participating in earlier Bio-rights projects have proved successful in
working towards sustainability, as community members tend to be very receptive to piloting
approaches introduced by other community groups.

Bio-rights in theory and practice
107
LESSONS LEARNED:
+ Hiring skilled community members from previous Bio-rights project sites as trainers or Local
Programme Managers contributed to improved project outcomes.
+ Close cooperation with the planning agency BRR and other local stakeholders reduced negative
interference with other local development activities to a minimum.
+ The establishment of a revolving fund for maintaining financial resources within communities
has contributed to the increased long-term sustainability of the project.
+ The continuous presence of Local Programme Managers in the selected sites greatly increased
project success.
- More intense screening and training of Local Programme Managers would have increased
overall project success
- Identification of scenarios and allocating a budget for addressing the impact of unexpected
events on conservation and development activities would have contributed to improved project
outcomes.
! Addressing a wider range of environmental issues (besides tree planting and establishing
protected areas) would have increased conservation outcomes.
! Accomplishing full sustainability of community activities requires an intense and long-term
process of capacity building and training
+ = ‘positive lesson learned’, - = ‘negative’ lesson learned, ! = key point

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
108
10. Case III. Water bird conservation in the
Inner Niger Delta, Mali
10.1 Introduction
Consisting of more than 3,000,000 hectares of lush floodplains, rivers and lakes, the Inner Niger
Delta is of great importance for a large diversity of water birds. Each year millions of birds migrate
from their Palaearctic breeding grounds to their wintering habitat in and around the delta. The
delta also hosts large numbers of local breeding water birds that reside in the delta year-round,
or migrate within the African continent. The rich biological diversity in the delta and the related
ecosystem services are of great importance to the livelihoods of local people. More than one
million farmers, pastoralists and fishermen directly depend on the resources of the delta.
Despite the evident value of the delta to these people, anthropogenic pressures are rising rapidly.
Large-scale upstream irrigation and hydropower schemes have decreased water availability.
Overexploitation of resources has led to ecosystem degradation and affected the delta’s
resilience and productivity. As a result, local communities face increasing difficulties in meeting
daily needs and are forced to identify supplementary sources of income. Water bird hunting
with hooks and nets is one of them. Particularly in dry years, when fish catches are low, fishing
communities engage in this business. The hunting practices are facilitated by a limited number
of well-respected women’s groups - normally involved in the marketing of
fish - who provide hunters with shelter and catching equipment and organise the trade in
regional markets. Monitoring in the target area (i.e., the central town of Mopti and surrounding
areas) has shown that prior to 2000, no less than 62.500 birds were traded in dry years, mainly
Ruff (Philomachus pugnax) and Garganey (Anas querquedula). These species have a very
high conservation value in western Europe, where populations are rapidly decreasing, while
representing a relatively low value in western Africa. In recognition of these threats and the (likely)
favourable cost-benefit ratio of conservation investments, it was decided to initiate a small-scale
project to reduce hunting pressures in the area.
The project in brief:
Objective: Reducing hunting pressure on migratory water birds; developing alternative income generating
activities for women’s groups involved in the bird trade. Where? Inner Niger Delta, around Mopti town (Mali),
Implemented by: Wetlands International - Mali, with local authorities. Funded by: Royal British Embassy.
Implementation period: January - December 2000. Budget: € 25,000. Main accomplishments: Hunting
pressure on migratory water birds decreased by > 90%; increased income, decreased vulnerability and
improved social status for 565 women in 8 communities; overall improved livelihood security as a result
of environmental conservation and sustainable development for 8 villages.

Bio-rights in theory and practice
109
10.2 Project initiation
Wetlands International has a long history of working in the Inner Niger Delta. The earliest
projects aimed to acquire insights into the functioning of the delta, through analysis of existing
data, hydrological modelling studies, and ecological inventories, including monitoring of water
bird populations and counting of birds traded at markets for consumption. The counts were
undertaken throughout the delta and involved close cooperation with local communities, which
provided site-specific information and logistical support. Initially, community members were
hesitant to reveal their illegal poaching activities, but after realising that the information collected
was not going to be used against them, they cooperated fully in the survey and provided details
and quantified information on the trade. Over the years a relationship of trust developed between
the community groups and the investigators, although community members found it hard to
understand the rationale behind the dedicated bird inventories.
The bird counts revealed the high level of threat in the delta to migrant bird populations, as
well as the inter-linkage between increased poverty due to environmental degradation and the
increase in the unsustainable harvesting of water birds. Consequently, Wetlands International
together with Alterra (Wageningen University) - in the role of Bio-rights Project Manager -
developed plans for a small-scale conservation pilot, aimed at providing development support
in return for community commitment to decrease hunting pressure. After the British Embassy
agreed to finance the pilot, discussions were organised with a number of women’s groups, to
identify whether they were supportive of the proposed activities. This resulted in the selection of
eight women’s groups (totalling 565 individuals) that were heavily involved in the bird trade and
The Inner Niger Delta in the dry season. Photo: Pieter van Eijk.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
110
were willing to be involved in the project. The environmental department of local government
agreed to participate, as well, by identifying options for linking the project’s community
conservation actions to local policies. The Wetlands International office in Mopti was identified
as the most appropriate Local Programme Manager because of its excellent contacts with local
communities.
10.3 Project development
Project development started with a number of meetings with the selected groups and other
relevant stakeholders, such as government representatives, to explain the proposed concepts
and share ideas about desirable conservation and development outcomes. Next, concrete
project planning meetings were held to identify conservation and development actions. It was
agreed that the involved community groups would stop trading birds in local markets and would
refrain from providing hunters with hunting equipment (mainly nets and hooks) and shelter. To
avoid new groups taking over their position, it was agreed that the women’s groups would
also be trained as ‘eco-guards’. This would enable them to work with the local government’s
environmental department to control illegal activities in their area, both during and after project
implementation. In return it was agreed that each community group would receive a € 762 loan,
in support of development activities. The women’s groups were entirely free to identify and select
their income generating activities, as long as sustainability criteria were taken into account.
Their choices included poultry farming, the development of fish smoking enterprises and the
establishment of seed and food banks in anticipation of the high risk of future food shortages.
Careful consideration was paid to the project’s long-term sustainability. Accommodating the
local community’s need for sustained access to financial resources, it was agreed that micro-
credits would be provided in the form of community-based savings funds. This would allow
each community member to borrow from the fund, at a 10 percent interest rate. The interest
rate leads to a steady growth of capital, while at the same time being much lower than the very
high interest rates charged by external moneylenders. It was agreed that the community-based
savings schemes would be maintained in the community as revolving funds after conversion
of micro-credits upon meeting the conservation objectives. Micro-credits were provided at the
start of the project, in response to the high level of enthusiasm and dedication of community
Overexploitation of birds (l) and fish (r) in the Inner Niger Delta. Photos: Leo Zwarts.

Bio-rights in theory and practice
111
members during project development. The contractual period was restricted to one year,
but regular subsequent visits were anticipated to provide technical advice, where needed, to
the community groups, and to motivate them to maintain their sustainable practices. Project
monitoring was implemented by the Local Programme Manager, together with the involved
community groups, by means of intensive field observations during regular inventories. Visits
were also paid to nearby markets in order to quantify regional bird trade activities. The level of
cooperation of community groups with local authorities also served as a means to measure
community involvement in conservation.
10.4 Contract development
A formal Bio-rights contract was signed with each of the women’s groups. Local mayors, village
heads and representatives of the local natural resource management department were also
incorporated as signatories to the contracts. This enhanced involvement in and support of
the project among different sectors and contributed to improved cooperation between local
communities and government institutions.
Bio-rights women’s group in a replanted flood forest in Mali. Photo: Pieter van Eijk.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
112
10.5 Project implementation
Before implementation of actual conservation activities, an extensive training scheme was
initiated within each community group. Trainings were provided in the respective local languages
(Bozo, Bambara and Fulani) of each women’s group. First of all, awareness was raised on the
role of water birds in relation to the sound functioning of the Inner Niger Delta. Earlier research
indicated that water bird colonies perform a very important role as breeding grounds for a large
number of fish species throughout the delta. Bird excrement is rich in nutrients and forms the
basis of a healthy food chain, which greatly influences the development of fish stocks. Similarly, it
was found that the occurrence of water bird concentrations serves as a good indicator of healthy
systems that are rich in fish and other natural resources. Both findings were communicated
as clear examples of the importance of sustaining water bird populations. Awareness was
Development of sound, enforceable contracts is one of the most challenging elements of Bio-rights
implementation. Implementing organisations are often insufficiently familiar with aspects of local
legislation and sometimes lack the capacity to establish contracting formats and to formalise contractual
agreements under government law. Weak institutional structures might further compromise the
enforceability of contracts. One way of overcoming these difficulties is to make use of existing formats
for small-scale contractual agreements with communities. In 2006-2008, under the Wetlands and
Poverty Reduction Project (WPRP) this approach was piloted by working with CAMEC, a Malian micro-
credit institution with extensive experience in establishing small-scale contracts with communities. After
the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the WPRP consortium (Wetlands International
and Care in Mali) and CAMEC, it was agreed that CAMEC would take responsibility for micro-credit
dispersal, wih the WPRP partners providing technical support for on-the-ground implementation of
the Bio-rights agreements. The pilot was implemented between 2006 and 2008 and was evaluated
afterwards.
It was agreed that communities could borrow a certain amount from CAMEC, under the condition
that this loan would be reimbursed at a certain interest rate within a given period. After delivery of
successful conservation activities upon termination of the contractual period, communities were free
to choose whether they wanted their micro-credit and associated interest to be paid out in cash, or
whether they preferred to leave their capital in CAMEC’s accounts and become a shareholder of the
micro-credit institution. In the first case communities would have a relatively large amount of cash
available upon termination of the contract, whereas in the latter case communities would be sure of
annually receiving a certain fraction of the profits generated by their capital invested in the micro-
credit institution. The approach proved very successful in that it relieved the field partners from the
burden of dealing with complex paperwork, and also helped CAMEC to diversify its portfolio of financial
products. The approach was attractive for local communities, as they were able to sign a contract with
a renowned national institution and gave them the prospect of acquiring a long-term flow of income
by becoming a (very small) shareholder in the micro-credit institution. Normally, the community groups
involved would not be able to borrow from CAMEC, as their risk profile would be considered to be too
high. However, after engaging in Bio-rights and demonstrating success to CAMEC by reimbursing the
initial loans, these groups have been granted future access to CAMEC’s financial products, and are now
considered as trustworthy lenders. Following an evaluation of the approach in 2008, CAMEC decided to
formally incorporate Bio-rights loans in their portfolio of products.
Box 12. Working with a micro-credit institution

Bio-rights in theory and practice
113
also raised on the life histories of migratory birds. The large number of rings recovered from
Eurasian migrants, served as an excellent means of illustrating their fascinating migration from
distant regions to the delta. By highlighting these aspects, the project tried to inspire a sense of
amazement as well as establish recognition of the fact that the community groups have a joint
responsibility with people elsewhere in the world to wisely manage the populations of these
vulnerable species. Together with the environmental department of the local government, the
community groups were trained in aspects of natural resource management, including capacity
building for the sustainable use of natural resources, community-based patrolling, monitoring
and the enforcement of regulations. The training also taught community members about the
most common bird species in the area, by producing a small identification guide in several
local languages. Children in the community who could identify all the species in the booklet
were awarded a T-shirt, with a painting of a Garganey (the flagship species of the project),
that showed their involvement in the project. Such small incentives increased the enthusiasm
and dedication of community members for the training sessions. Training was also provided to
support the anticipated development activities and the establishment and maintenance of the
community-based savings funds. Particular emphasis was placed on the organisation of group
processes and the internal distribution of tasks.
The trainings created a firm basis for implementing the conservation and development activities.
The conservation actions were quite straightforward, merely involving participating in community-
based patrols and refraining from hunting and marketing birds. The development activities were
rather more complex and involved a range of activities that required extensive planning and
piloting. The development activities were closely guided by the Local Manager and care was
taken to optimally align them to local field conditions.
School children, proudly showing their bird identification booklets and project T-shirts. Photo:
Pieter van Eijk.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
114
10.6 Project outcome
As soon as the contract was signed water bird hunting and trading was immediately halted
in and around the villages of the community groups involved. The deal initially met with some
resistance by villagers who were attached to their daily breakfast of fried Garganey or Ruff.
However, the Bio-rights deals signed with the women’s groups were generally considered
beneficial to the entire village and most villagers were convinced to join conservation efforts.
Following the trainings on wetland management and community-based patrolling, the women’s
groups paid a large number of visits to nearby communities, to raise awareness on the importance
of water bird protection, urging them to stop overexploiting vulnerable species. Supported by
the local government department of environmental conservation, they also engaged in regular
field patrolling activities in the areas surrounding the target villages. This linkage between formal
legislation and community-based enforcement proved highly effective, in that it greatly reduced
illegal activities and contributed to increased community support for government policies.
Monitoring activities during and after the project, indicate that the women’s groups conservation
activities have contributed greatly to reducing hunting pressure in the region. The number of
water birds observed as being traded at local markets dwindled to several thousand individuals.
However, it remains difficult to exactly quantify the decrease in hunting pressure, as other factors,
such as flooding intensity, also determine differences in poaching rates between years. Since the
end of the project, the women’s groups have continued their role as wetland guards. The hunting
of water birds is still banned among all eight groups and the groups still voluntarily perform
regular field patrols. The groups estimate that they have decreased hunting pressures by around
90 percent since initiation of the project. The community groups have continued to protect water
birds in the delta, as they recognise their importance as indicators of healthy systems and as
important components within the Inner Niger Delta’s natural ecosystem. They also recognise
that they have a shared responsibility for protecting populations of migrating water birds. In
recognition of the support provided by the British embassy, they also feel obliged to adhere to
the conservation objectives set out in the contract, even though the official contracting period
ended years ago.
The development activities implemented under the project significantly contributed to improving
the livelihoods of the participating communities. Food banks have decreased vulnerability to
famine, and agricultural activities and small enterprises developed under the project have raised
families’ incomes. Although the earnings generated by the development projects remain small,
Development activities supported under the project: education (l) and the establishment of food
banks (r). Photos: Pieter van Eijk.

Bio-rights in theory and practice
115
they are generated on a year-round basis, in contrast to the income generated from hunting
and trading water birds, which only took place between December and April. The development
activities implemented by the women’s groups have considerably increased their level of financial
independence, and the strengthening of the groups has contributed to increased involvement in
decision making, both within communities and at the regional government level. The revolving
fund established under the project provides sustained source of capital to implement further
sustainable development activities. As a result, the community groups are continuously initiating
new activities, based on their own needs and funding opportunities. This has significantly
enhanced the long-term sustainability of the project. As the capital within the revolving funds has
grown slowly over time, the community groups have been able to invite additional members to
join their savings scheme. Most of the women’s groups have continued to develop, undertaking
new development activities and seeking to improve their technical skills. Some groups currently
run classes several hours a week to learn basic writing and reading skills. With members paying
for the costs of these classes themselves.
Two of the eight women’s groups have been less successful in developing new sources of
livelihoods. Their villages were hit by a famine in the first year of the project and they were forced
to use the micro-credits to procure emergency food supplies. Although this enabled them to
survive the harsh season, both groups were left with no money to develop new sustainable
activities. As a result they were unable to establish activities that could reduce their vulnerability
to extreme events. Despite these difficulties, the community groups have shown their dedication
through continued recognition of the agreed ban on water bird hunting and trading practices.
LESSONS LEARNED:
+ Trust between community groups and the buying party was a key to successful project
implementation.
+ Converting micro-credits into a community-based revolving fund greatly increased the
sustainability of conservation and development interventions.
+ Extensive awareness raising and technical training activities contributed to the community
groups’ dedication to conservation activities and increased their capacity to successfully engage
in conservation activities.
+ Linking formal government policy to community enforcement of legislations maximised the
potential for implementing regulations and adjusting them to local needs and site conditions.
- The allocation of a budget for unexpected events could have avoided the failure of two
communities to initiate development activities.
! Cooperation with an experienced micro-credit institution could have facilitated contractual
arrangements and would have contributed expertise on the establishment of community funds
+ = ‘positive lesson learned’, - = ‘negative’ lesson learned, ! = key point

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
116
11. References
Amin, S., Rai, A.S. & Ropa, G. 2003. Does
microcredit reach the poor and vulnerable?
Evidence from Northern Bangladesh.
Journal of Development Economics 70,
pp. 59-82.
Asquith, N.M., Vargas, M.T. & Wunder, S.,
2008. Selling two environmental services:
in-kind payments for bird habitat and
watershed protection in Los Negros,
Bolivia. Ecological Economics 65, pp.
675-684.
Barrett, C.S. & Arcese, P., 1995. Are integrated
conservation and development projects
sustainable? On the conservation of large
mammals in Sub-Saharan Africa. World
Development 23, pp. 1073-1084.
Bennet, M.T., 2008. China’s sloping land
conversion program: institutional
innovation or business as usual?
Ecological Economics 65, pp. 700-712.
Bishop, J., Kapila, S., Hicks, F., Mitchell, P.
& Vorhies, F., 2008. Building Biodiversity
Business. Shell International Limited and
the International Union for Conservation
of Nature: London, UK, and Gland,
Switzerland. 164 pp.
Brown, K., 1998. The political ecology
of biodiversity, conservation and
development in Nepal’s Terai: confused
meanings, means and ends. Ecological
Economics 24, pp. 73-88.
Bulte, E.H., Lipper, L., Stringer, R. & Zilberman,
D.,2008. Payments for ecosystem services
and poverty reduction: concepts, issues,
and empirical perspectives. Environment
and Development Economics 13: pp.
245-254.
Chen, M.A. & Snodgrass, D., 2001. Managing
resources, activities, and risk in urban
India: the impact of SEWA Bank. AIMS,
Washington D.C.
Coleman, B.E., 2004. Microfinance in
Northeast Thailand: who benefits and
how much? World development 34 (9):
pp. 1612-1638.
Cornes, R. & Sandler, T., 1996. The theory of
externalities, public goods and club goods
(second edition). Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge. 590 pp.
Edwards, P.J. & Abivardi, C.,1998. The
value of biodiversity: where ecology and
economy blend. Geobotanical Institute
ETH, Biological Conservation 83 (3), pp.
239-249.
Engel, S., Pagiola, S. & Wunder, S., 2008.
Designing payments for environmental
services in theory and practice: an
overview of the issues. Ecological
Economics 65, pp. 663-675
Engel, S. & Palmer, C., 2008. Payments for
environmental services as an alternative
to logging under weak property rights: the
case of Indonesia. Ecological Economics
65, pp. 800-810.
Ferraro, P.J. & Simpson, R.D., 2003. Protecting
forests and biodiversity: are investments in
eco-friendly production activities the best
way to protect endangered ecosystems
and enhance rural livelihoods?, resented
at the conference ‘Rural Livelihoods,
Forests and Biodiversity’, Bonn, Germany,
sponsored by CIFOR, in collaboration with
BMZ, DSE, and GTZ, 26-30 May.

Bio-rights in theory and practice
117
Finlayson, C.M, D’Cruz R & Davidson, N.J.
2005. Ecosystem services and human
well-being: water and wetlands synthesis.
World Resources Institute, Washington
DC, USA.
Franks, P. & Blomley, T., 2004. Fitting ICD into
a project framework: A CARE perspective.
In: Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work:
Towards More Effective Conservation and
Development. McShane, T.O. & Wells,
M.P. (eds). Columbia University, New
York, pp. 77-97.
Hulme, D. & Mosley, P., 1996. Finance Against
Poverty. Vol. 1 and 2, Routledge, London.
215 pp (vol I) and 451 pp (vol II).
Khandker, S., 1998. Fighting poverty with
microcredit: experience from Bangladesh,
London.
McShane, T.O. & Wells, M.P. (eds), 2004.
Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work:
Towards more effective conservation and
development. Columbia University Press,
New York.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005.
Ecosystems and human well-being:
Wetlands and water synthesis. World
resources Institute, Washington, DC.
MkNelly, B. & Dunford, C.,1999. Impact of
Credit with Education on Mothers and
Young Children’s Nutrition: CRECER
Credit with Education Program in Bolivia.
Freedom From Hunger Research Paper
no 5.
MkNelly, B., Watetip, C., Lassen C.A. &
Dunford, C., 1996. Preliminary evidence
that integrated financial and educational
services can be effective against hunger
and malnutrition. Freedom From Hunger
Research Paper no. 2.
Montgomery, H. & Weiss, J., 2005. Great
Expectations: Microfinance and Poverty
Reduction in Asia and Latin America.
ADB Institute Research Paper Series no.
63. Oxford University Press for the World
Bank, New York.
Mulder, I, 2004. Bio-rights - A concept for
poverty-environment issues. What are the
implementation possibilities? Wageningen
University, Wageningen.
North, D., 1990. Institutions, Institutional
Change and Economic Performance.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Pagiola S., & Platais., G., 2007. Payments for
Environmental Services: From Theory to
Practice. World Bank, Washington.
Perrot-Maître, D., 2006. The Vittel Payments
for Ecosystem Services: a ‘Perfect’
PES Case? Project Paper no. 3. IIED,
London.
Pitt, M.M. & Khandker, S., 1998. The impact
of group-based credit programs on poor
households in Bangladesh: does the
gender of participants matter? Journal of
Political Economy 2, pp. 958-977.
Ravnborg, H.M., Damsgaard, M.G. & Raben,
K., 2007. Payment for Ecosystem Services
-issues and pro-poor opportunities for
development assistance. DIIS Report.
Danish Institute for International Studies,
Copenhagen.
Sanjayan, M.A., Shen, S. & Jansen, M., 1997.
Experiences with Integrated Conservation
and Development Projects in Asia.
Technical Paper no. 38. The World Bank,
Washington DC.
Sayer, J. & Wells, M.P., 2004. The Pathology
of Projects. In: Getting Biodiversity
Projects to Work: Towards More Effective
Conservation and Development. Columbia
University Press, New York, pp. 35-48

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
118
Stavins, R., 2000. Experience with Market-
Based Environmental Policy Instruments.
In: Maler, K. & Vincent, J. (eds.) The
Handbook of Environmental Economics.
North-Holland/Elsevier Science,
Amsterdam.
Stiglitz, J., 1986. The New Development
Economics. World Development 14(2):
pp. 257-65.
Stocking, M. & Perkins, S. 1992. Conservation-
with-development: an application of the
concept in the Usambara Mountains,
Tanzania. Trans. Inst. British Geogr. 17,
pp. 337-349.
Tattenbach, F., Obando, G. & Rodríguez,
J., 2006. Mejora del excedente nacional
del pago de servicios ambientales.
FONAFIFO, San José.
United Nations, 2000. A. Resolution 55/L2:
United Nations millennium declaration.
United Nations, New York.
Williamson, O.,1985. The Economic
Institutions of Capitalism. Free Press,
New York.
World Bank Group, 2006. World Development
Indicators 2006. World Bank Group,
Washington DC.
Wunder, S., 2005. Payments for environmental
services: some nuts and bolts. Occasional
Paper no. 42. CIFOR, Bogor.
Wunder, S., S. Engel, S., & Pagiola, S., 2008.
Taking stock: lessons learnt for the design
of for environmental services programs.
Ecological Economics 65, pp. 834-852.

Bio-rights in theory and practice
119
Annex I
Assessing suitability of Bio-rights as a tool for project implementation
Is poverty a main driver of degradation of the environmental services that are
to be protected?
Would a match between conservation and development activities deliver
optimal project outcomes at minimum cost?
Is it possible to develop sufficient management capacity within the target
groups in the field to accomplish a durable transition towards sustainable
development?
Can the anticipated conservation actions be successfully implemented
through the knowledge, skills and human resources available within the
community groups, or can these elements be established in the course of
the project?
Do the target groups have sufficient power to reduce or prevent the external
impacts that drive environmental degradation (e.g. industrial development,
government development plans)?
Are there sufficient means to effectively prevent trade-offs between
conservation and development? In other words: is it possible to promote
development without compromising conservation and, vice versa, to
conserve or restore environmental assets without inhibiting development
opportunities?
Is there sufficient time available for rigorously addressing all the implementation
steps?
Do the project implementers have sufficient multi-sectoral expertise, including
knowledge about conservation, development and financial management?
Are there sufficient means to ensure long-term sustainability, i.e., through
the availability of sustained funding to provide longer term payments (as
with PES schemes) or, alternatively through addressing the poverty trap,
restoring a lasting balance between conservation and development?
Are the right local contacts in place to implement a bottom-up field-based
initiative?
Does the local governance context in the target area favour the implementation
of Bio-rights?
YES NO

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
120
Would a Bio-rights initiative link well to other conservation and development
approaches within the region?
Does the anticipated donor agency or investor allow for the disbursal of payments
by means of the Bio-rights approach?
Note:
Above questions aim to guide overall assessment of the suitability of Bio-rights as a tool to
address the conservation and development objectives identified within the concept project
plan. In principle, all questions should be answered ‘YES’ for Bio-rights to be an appropriate
tool. The full potential of Bio-rights needs to be assessed in steps 1B to 2A and a number
of criteria should be considered during the selection of project sites (see annex 2) to ensure
local applicability.
YES NO

Bio-rights in theory and practice
121
Annex II
Decision support system for site selection
Part A. Selection of suitable sites within pre-selected target regions
ECOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Does the area provide the ecosystem service(s) targeted under the proposed
action?
If no: the project site is not suitable.
Is the ecosystem service targeted under the proposed action under threat
(currently or potentially) or has it been degraded in the past?
If no: no current need for Bio-rights implementation.
Can the ecosystem service targeted under the proposed action be realistically
sustained or restored considering local site conditions and the resources
available?
If no: the project site is not suitable.
Are the project risks related to extreme events acceptable and if not, can they
be sufficiently controlled either in advance of, or as part of, the anticipated
intervention?
If no: the project site is not suitable.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
Does the local community have full ownership over land and associated
ecosystem services?
If no: the project site is not suitable, unless i) land and resource ownership
can be negotiated in advance of project initiation or ii) the formal land owner
fully supports the proposed intervention and is included as a signatory to the
contract. Contractual agreements with such a third partner should include
an expression of agreement with local proposed activities and conservation
measures as well as a promise to refrain from activities that would negatively
effect the Bio-rights interventions.
Are there external factors (e.g. encroachment by outsiders, conflicting
management plans etc.) that pose high risks to project success?
If yes: the project site is not suitable, unless the external impacts can be
reduced in advance of, or as part of, the proposed Bio-rights intervention,
(e.g. through improved law-enforcement, stakeholder consultations etc.)
YES NO

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
122
Are there unacceptable risks of leakage that cannot be mitigated against in
advance of, or as part of, the anticipated intervention?
If yes: the project site is not suitable.
Is the community sufficiently homogeneous in terms of social, economic
and ethnic composition, so as to allow equal participation of individuals in
implementation Bio-rights and to allow the full support of the (majority) of the
community for the proposed intervention?
If no: the project site is not suitable.
Are there any unacceptable risks related to local governance (e.g. corruption,
political tensions) or conflicts within and among communities?
If yes: the project site is not suitable.
ENABLING ENVIRONMENT
Is the local community receptive to involvement in Bio-rights (including all of the
major social, ethnic and religious groups represented)?
If no: the project site is not suitable.
Are local government and other relevant stakeholders supportive of the
proposed Bio-rights intervention?
If no: the project site is not suitable, unless support can be raised through
stakeholder meetings in advance of Bio-rights implementation.
Is there any legislation that would hamper successful Bio-rights
implementation?
If yes: the project site is not suitable, unless the legislation can be changed in
advance of Bio-rights implementation.
Can the long-term sustainability of the project be sufficiently guaranteed given
the socio-economic context of the proposed intervention and the resources
available?
If no: the project is not suitable. Project sustainability depends in part on the
required project duration (sometimes a several-year project can accomplish a
conversion to long term sustainable management)as well as on the amount of
funding available (long-term projects require continuous funding).
YES NO
YES NO

Bio-rights in theory and practice
123
Part B. Prioritisation
1. What are the expected costs for the provision of the targeted ecosystem service?
2. What are anticipated socio-economic and environmental costs and benefits and how do
these relate to each other and to the target ecosystem service?
3. What are the long-term prospects for the proposed project, i.e., what is the anticipated
sustainability?
4. What are the expected project duration and financial resources needed to accomplish
long-term sustainability?
5. What is the level of project risk? Is this acceptable?
6. To what extent do the socio-economic and site conditions favour Bio-rights
implementation?
7. To what extent are local governance structures supportive of Bio-rights implementation?
8. How does the proposed Bio-rights intervention match with existing conservation and
development policies and plans?
9. To what extent is project implementation logistically feasible (access to project sites,
management capacities of local field staff, availability of materials needed for implementation
etc.)?

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
124
Annex III
Checklist for project development
1. Proposed conservation objectives have been identified and clarified to all involved
stakeholders.
2. Practical conservation activities and the role of local communities within these
have been identified and designed.
3. Lost opportunity costs resulting from the proposed conservation measures have
been estimated.
4. Community objectives for sustainable development have been identified.
5. Practical sustainable development activities have been identified and designed.
6. Payment conditions (timelines for micro-credit disbursal and modes of payment)
have been set.
7. A project monitoring plan has been developed.
8. The role of different stakeholders in monitoring project outcomes has been
identified.
9. Measurable indicators for successful conservation (as a basis for micro-credit
conversion) have been set.
10. Project boundaries have been identified.
11. Project duration has been set.
12. Project risks have been identified and risk mitigation measures have been
designed.
13. A force majeure clause relating to natural (or other) disasters has been developed
and agreed on.
14. A time schedule for project implementation has been developed.
15. Plans for technical support provision and awareness raising activities have been
developed.
16. The rights and obligations of stakeholders, with regard to capacity building and
awareness raising activities, have been set.

Bio-rights in theory and practice
125
Annex IV
Checklist for contract development
1. Listing and short description of all signatories to the contract, including
buyers, sellers, and any involved third parties (e.g., government).
2. Description of the overall roles of contract signatories in the project and of the general
project objectives.
3. Description of the role and obligations of intermediaries (i.e. the Bio-rights Project
Manager and the Local Programme Manager)
4. The number of involved community members (including names where applicable) and
description of how responsibilities for meeting obligations will be arranged within the
group.
5. Description of ecosystem service(s) to be delivered by the selling party including
quantification of each service involved.
6. Description of practical measures to be undertaken by the selling party to accomplish
conservation objectives.
7. Description of support provided by the buying party for sustainable development in
return for community contribution to conservation, including quantification of (financial
and non-financial) support that will be provided.
8. Specification of materials to be provided by buying party in support of conservation
activities.
9. Specification of sustainable development measures to be implemented by the selling
party.
10. Description of conditions that should be complied with by contract signatories to
ensure overall project sustainability.
11. Description of the buyer’s obligations to provide technical support and awareness-
raising activities.
12. Description of the seller’s obligations to attend capacity building and awareness-
raising activities.
13. Specification of the measures to be undertaken to reduce project risks (e.g., related
to disasters, leakage, immigration, outside impacts etc) and the role (obligations) of
different signatories therein.
14. Description of the quantity and number of payments provided by buying party
(including timeline of disbursal).

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
126
15. Description of the mode of payment from the buying party (in cash or in kind).
16. Description of obligations among contract signatories with regard to project monitoring
and evaluation.
17. Description of conditions for micro-credit conversion.
18. Description of potential measures in case of violation of contractual agreement by one
of the parties involved, including details on project termination and (legal) enforcement
of project obligations.
19. Description of force majeure clause.
20. In case of involvement of a third party as a contract signatory: description of their roles
and obligations with regard to project implementation.
21. Specification of project duration and description of project area.

Bio-rights in theory and practice
127
Annex IV
Bio-rights: summary of implementation steps and responsibilities
PROJECT INITIATION
Step 1 A. Concept development and assessment of appropriate approach:
establishment of concept idea (BPM) 0
assess the applicability of Bio-rights approach (BPM) 0
develop plan to integrate Bio-rights in a wider framework of activities 0
(BPM)
Step 1 B. Generate funds:
mobilise internal funding or raise external funding from ‘traditional’ donors 0
or ecosystem service buyers (BPM)
Step 1 C. Identication of other interested stakeholders:
identify stakeholders with similar conservation and development 0
objectives (BPM)
assess options for generating co-funding through their donor network 0
(BPM)
ensure inclusion of external experiences and skills (BPM) 0
Step 1 D. Selection of project sites:
select target country/region (BPM) 0
short-list potential project sites within target area by means of desk study 0
(BPM)
assess the suitability of potential project sites through rapid inventory 0
(BPM)
prioritise project sites based on project risks and cost-benefit ratio 0
(BPM)
Step 1 E. Network development and stakeholder consultation (I):
organise joint and individual meetings to 0
develop network and identify project partners (BPM) 0
assess support among local actors for Bio-rights implementation (BPM); 0
and
dentify options for mainstreaming Bio-rights in local policies and plans 0
(BPM)
Step 1 F. Selection of Local Programme Manager:
select Local Programme Manager from local network or through tendering 0
process (BPM)
Step 1 G. Training of Local Programme Manager:
familiarise Local Programme Manager with all aspects of Bio-rights 0
implementation (BPM)

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
128
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
Step 2 A. Stakeholder consultation (II): explanation of concept and group
development: organise community consultations to:
establish intent for cooperation (LPM with BPM) 0
raise understanding of the concept (LPM with BPM) 0
share needs and aspirations (LPM with BPM) 0
form community groups (LPM) 0
Step 2 B. Stakeholder consultation (III): setting goals and plan development: develop
concrete project plan with project partners (LPM with BPM)
dentify needs of selling and buying parties (LPM with BPM) 0
establish payment conditions (BPM with LPM) 0
develop plan for monitoring and evaluation (BPM with LPM) 0
identify project area and duration (BPM with LPM) 0
develop risk mitigation strategy (BPM with LPM) 0
develop overall implementation plan (BPM with LPM) 0
Step 2 C. Further eld studies: optional:
perform further field inventories to establish rigorous baseline (LPM or 0
BPM)
Step 2 D. Fitting Bio-rights plan to the wider context:
assess how Bio-rights can be linked to existing policies and plans and 0
local conservation and development initiatives (BPM with LPM)
Step 2 E. Overcome policy hurdles:
involve relevant government agencies in plan development (LPM or 0
BPM)
identify and solve obstructions to Bio-rights implementation (LPM with 0
BPM)
CONTRACT NEGOTIATION
Step 3 A. Contract negotiation:
develop contract format (BPM with LPM) 0
negotiate contract with signatories (LPM with BPM) 0
ensure compliance with local policies and legislations (LPM with BPM) 0
Step 3 B. Signing of Bio-rights contract:
organise contract signing ceremony (LPM) 0
actual signing of contract (LPM with BPM) 0

Bio-rights in theory and practice
129
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
Step 4 A. Capacity building and awareness-raising:
organise capacity building and awareness raising activities (LPM or BPM, 0
community groups might also provide trainings themselves)
0
Step 4 B. Issuing micro-credits:
disbursal of micro-credits for sustainable development (LPM) 0
Step 4 C. Initiating conservation and development activities:
refine conservation and development plans through community meetings 0
(LPM)
provide the materials needed for implementing conservation activities 0
(LPM)
provide technical support during implementation of conservation and 0
development activities (LPM)
PROJECT MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Step 5 A. Monitoring project outcome and progress:
ongoing and final monitoring of project progress and final conservation 0
and development outcomes (LPM or BPM, often involving the community
groups)
Step 5 B. Micro-credit conversion:
use monitoring outcome to decide on micro-credit conversion (BPM with 0
LPM)
micro-credits to be converted in case of successful conservation and 0
reimbursed in case of failure (LPM with BPM). Where applicable:
reinvest money reimbursed as a result of failure to conservation measures 0
in successful community initiatives (BPM with LPM)
Step 5 C. Evaluating lessons learned:
evaluate lessons learned (BPM with LPM) 0
assess project outcome against baseline (BPM with LPM) 0
BPM = Bio-rights Project Manager; LPM = Local Programme Manager. Note that exact
responsibilities for the different implementation steps will depend on the specific expertise
of the organisations involved and specific on-site circumstances. Often the steps are
implemented jointly by the BPM and LPM, sometimes also involving other stakeholders.

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
130
Notes

Bio-rights in theory and practice
131
Notes

A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation
132
Notes

Bio-rights in theory and practice Pieter van Eijk and Ritesh Kumar, 2009
Bio-rights in theory and
practice
A financing mechanism for linking poverty
alleviation and environmental conservation
Many poor communities in developing countries are entangled in the poverty
trap: to meet short-term livelihood needs they are forced to unsustainably exploit
the environment. This in turn deteriorates critical life-supporting ecosystem
services, such as sheries, timber resources, soil fertility and fresh water
provision.
Bio-rights is an innovative nancial instrument that addresses the poverty trap
by integrating sustainable development and environmental conservation. In
return for the provision of micro-credits, local communities involve in ecosystem
protection and restoration. Upon successful delivery of conservation services
these micro-credits are converted into denitive payments. Thus, the approach
enables community involvement in conservation while providing sustainable
alternatives to harmful development practices.
Bio-rights is a powerful tool towards addressing the environmental challenges of
our age including climate change, biodiversity loss and rural poverty. With this
report Wetlands International aims to introduce conservation and development
practitioners, policymakers, scientic institutes and the corporate and nance
to the rationale and theory behind Bio-rights and to provide extensive guidance
for initiating and implementing the approach in practice. This is illustrated by
a number of case examples from projects that have been implemented by
Wetlands International over the last few years.
Mission:
To sustain and
restore wetlands,
their resources and
biodiversity for
future generations.
For further information please
visit our website or contact our
office.
Wetlands International
PO Box 471
6700 AL Wageningen
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 318 660 910
Fax: +31 318 660 950
E-mail: post@wetlands.org
Website: www.wetlands.org
Pieter van Eijk and Ritesh Kumar, 2009