Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ulb/ulbeco/2013-258845.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Utilitarian framings of biodiversity shape environmental impact assessment in development cooperation

Author

Listed:
  • Jean Huge
  • Anne Julie Rochette
  • Luc Janssens de Bisthoven
  • Farid Dahdouh-Guebas
  • Nico Koedam
  • Maarten P M Vanhove
Abstract
Biodiversity is under threat from anthropogenic pressures, in particular in biodiversity-rich developing countries. Development cooperation actors, who traditionally focus on the improvement of socio-economic conditions in the South, are increasingly acknowledging the linkages between poverty and biodiversity, e.g. by referring to the ecosystem services framework. However, there are many different framings which stress the need for biodiversity integration and which influence how biodiversity and development are and/or should be linked. Moreover, there is a gap between the lip service paid to biodiversity integration and the reality of development cooperation interventions. This study analyses how biodiversity framings are reflected in environmental impact assessment (EIA) practice, and how these framings influence EIA and decision-making. The findings, based on an in-depth qualitative analysis of World Bank EIAs undertaken in West Africa, indicate the incoherent quality but also the dominance of the ‘utilitarian’ and ‘corrective’ framings, which respectively stress human use of nature and mitigation of negative unintended development impacts. Identifying and highlighting these discursive trends leads to increased awareness of the importance of biodiversity among all development actors in North and South. However, some framings may lead to an overly narrow human-centred approach which downplays the intrinsic value of biodiversity. This study proposes recommendations for an improved integration of biodiversity in development cooperation, including the need for more systematic baseline studies in EIAs.

Suggested Citation

  • Jean Huge & Anne Julie Rochette & Luc Janssens de Bisthoven & Farid Dahdouh-Guebas & Nico Koedam & Maarten P M Vanhove, 2017. "Utilitarian framings of biodiversity shape environmental impact assessment in development cooperation," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/258845, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    • Handle: RePEc:ulb:ulbeco:2013/258845
    Note: SCOPUS: ar.j
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jean Huge & Luc Janssens De Bisthoven & Mathilda Mushiete & Anne Julie Rochette & Soraya Candido & Hilde Keunen & Farid Dahdouh-Guebas & Nico Koedam & Maarten P M Vanhove, 2020. "EIA-driven biodiversity mainstreaming in development cooperation: Confronting expectations and practice in the DR Congo," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/298776, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    2. Gerald Schernewski & Mara Jekat & Frank Kösters & Thomas Neumann & Swantje Steffen & Miriam von Thenen, 2024. "Ecosystem Services Supporting Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs): Assessments of Navigation Waterways Deepening Based on Data, Experts, and a 3D Ecosystem Model," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-25, October.
    3. Kanokporn Swangjang, 2022. "Linkage of Sustainability to Environmental Impact Assessment Using the Concept of Ecosystem Services: Lessons from Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-18, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Africa; Baseline; Biodiversity; Development cooperation; Environmental impact assessment (EIA);
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ulb:ulbeco:2013/258845. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Benoit Pauwels (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecsulbe.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.