生物多样性保护政策的赢家、输家和不平等的影响:来自欧洲发展援助中非的见解

IF 3.9 3区 社会学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Alexandra Rasoamanana, Max Krott, Symphorien Ongolo
{"title":"生物多样性保护政策的赢家、输家和不平等的影响:来自欧洲发展援助中非的见解","authors":"Alexandra Rasoamanana,&nbsp;Max Krott,&nbsp;Symphorien Ongolo","doi":"10.1002/eet.70004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>International aid for biodiversity conservation is expected to provide alternative livelihoods for forest-dependent communities to offset restrictions on forest use. This aligns with the contemporary conservation discourse that promotes pro-poor, human rights-based, and sustainability principles. We used the Central Africa Forest Ecosystem Program (ECOFAC), the longest-running EU-funded initiative with nearly 200 million euros invested for about 30 years, as a case study to analyze how international aid, has attempted to achieve fair and sustainable conservation practices. Through a longitudinal study of the design of ECOFAC, we assessed its implementation arrangements, budget distribution, prioritized technical solutions, and target actors to identify to whom it has benefited the most (winners) and for whom it has not been beneficial or even harmful (losers). Our findings show that the EU biodiversity conservation program has prioritized the reinforcement of state administrations to strengthen their coercive power in protected areas. A co-dependency has developed between transnational actors, preferred by the EU as implementing partners, and state conservation actors. This relationship has become a barrier to meaningful reform within ECOFAC despite decades of policy learning. The pro-poor discourse and human rights concerns of the EU aid have not been reflected in the types of activities funded nor in the level of investments aimed at incentivizing forest-dependent communities to support conservation restrictions. EU policymakers need to pay more attention to how their interventions in biodiversity conservation policies create or reinforce power asymmetries and inequality, especially in Central Africa.</p>","PeriodicalId":47396,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Policy and Governance","volume":"35 5","pages":"839-851"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eet.70004","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Winners, Losers, and the Implications of Inequality in Biodiversity Conservation Policies: Insights From European Development Aid to Central Africa\",\"authors\":\"Alexandra Rasoamanana,&nbsp;Max Krott,&nbsp;Symphorien Ongolo\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/eet.70004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>International aid for biodiversity conservation is expected to provide alternative livelihoods for forest-dependent communities to offset restrictions on forest use. This aligns with the contemporary conservation discourse that promotes pro-poor, human rights-based, and sustainability principles. We used the Central Africa Forest Ecosystem Program (ECOFAC), the longest-running EU-funded initiative with nearly 200 million euros invested for about 30 years, as a case study to analyze how international aid, has attempted to achieve fair and sustainable conservation practices. Through a longitudinal study of the design of ECOFAC, we assessed its implementation arrangements, budget distribution, prioritized technical solutions, and target actors to identify to whom it has benefited the most (winners) and for whom it has not been beneficial or even harmful (losers). Our findings show that the EU biodiversity conservation program has prioritized the reinforcement of state administrations to strengthen their coercive power in protected areas. A co-dependency has developed between transnational actors, preferred by the EU as implementing partners, and state conservation actors. This relationship has become a barrier to meaningful reform within ECOFAC despite decades of policy learning. The pro-poor discourse and human rights concerns of the EU aid have not been reflected in the types of activities funded nor in the level of investments aimed at incentivizing forest-dependent communities to support conservation restrictions. EU policymakers need to pay more attention to how their interventions in biodiversity conservation policies create or reinforce power asymmetries and inequality, especially in Central Africa.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47396,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Policy and Governance\",\"volume\":\"35 5\",\"pages\":\"839-851\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eet.70004\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Policy and Governance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eet.70004\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Policy and Governance","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eet.70004","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

保护生物多样性的国际援助预计将为依赖森林的社区提供替代生计,以抵消对森林使用的限制。这与当代提倡扶贫、以人权为基础和可持续发展原则的保护话语一致。我们以中非森林生态系统项目(ECOFAC)为例,分析国际援助如何努力实现公平和可持续的保护实践。该项目是欧盟资助的、运行时间最长的项目,在大约30年的时间里投入了近2亿欧元。通过对ECOFAC设计的纵向研究,我们评估了其实施安排、预算分配、优先技术解决方案和目标行为体,以确定谁受益最大(赢家),谁没有受益甚至有害(输家)。研究结果表明,欧盟生物多样性保护计划优先加强国家行政管理,以加强其在保护区的强制力。跨国行为体(欧盟首选的实施伙伴)与国家保护行为体之间形成了相互依赖关系。尽管经历了几十年的政策学习,但这种关系已成为ecoofac内部进行有意义改革的障碍。欧盟援助的亲穷人话语和人权关切没有反映在资助的活动类型上,也没有反映在旨在激励依赖森林的社区支持保护限制的投资水平上。欧盟决策者需要更多地关注他们在生物多样性保护政策中的干预如何造成或加强权力不对称和不平等,特别是在中非。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Winners, Losers, and the Implications of Inequality in Biodiversity Conservation Policies: Insights From European Development Aid to Central Africa

Winners, Losers, and the Implications of Inequality in Biodiversity Conservation Policies: Insights From European Development Aid to Central Africa

International aid for biodiversity conservation is expected to provide alternative livelihoods for forest-dependent communities to offset restrictions on forest use. This aligns with the contemporary conservation discourse that promotes pro-poor, human rights-based, and sustainability principles. We used the Central Africa Forest Ecosystem Program (ECOFAC), the longest-running EU-funded initiative with nearly 200 million euros invested for about 30 years, as a case study to analyze how international aid, has attempted to achieve fair and sustainable conservation practices. Through a longitudinal study of the design of ECOFAC, we assessed its implementation arrangements, budget distribution, prioritized technical solutions, and target actors to identify to whom it has benefited the most (winners) and for whom it has not been beneficial or even harmful (losers). Our findings show that the EU biodiversity conservation program has prioritized the reinforcement of state administrations to strengthen their coercive power in protected areas. A co-dependency has developed between transnational actors, preferred by the EU as implementing partners, and state conservation actors. This relationship has become a barrier to meaningful reform within ECOFAC despite decades of policy learning. The pro-poor discourse and human rights concerns of the EU aid have not been reflected in the types of activities funded nor in the level of investments aimed at incentivizing forest-dependent communities to support conservation restrictions. EU policymakers need to pay more attention to how their interventions in biodiversity conservation policies create or reinforce power asymmetries and inequality, especially in Central Africa.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Policy and Governance
Environmental Policy and Governance ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
13.30%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: Environmental Policy and Governance is an international, inter-disciplinary journal affiliated with the European Society for Ecological Economics (ESEE). The journal seeks to advance interdisciplinary environmental research and its use to support novel solutions in environmental policy and governance. The journal publishes innovative, high quality articles which examine, or are relevant to, the environmental policies that are introduced by governments or the diverse forms of environmental governance that emerge in markets and civil society. The journal includes papers that examine how different forms of policy and governance emerge and exert influence at scales ranging from local to global and in diverse developmental and environmental contexts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信